Purpose To determine the impact of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) treatment duration on CDI recurrence in hematology/oncology patients receiving concurrent non-CDI antibiotics. Patients and methods This multi-site, retrospective study examined hematology/oncology patients age ≥18 years hospitalized with active CDI who received ≥1 dose of concurrent non-CDI antibiotics between September 2013 and June 2019. All patients were classified by two definitions for statistical analysis: standard (10-14 days) versus prolonged (>14 days) duration of CDI treatment and non-extended (≤24 hours after stopping non-CDI antibiotics) versus extended (>24 hours after stopping non-CDI antibiotics) CDI treatment. Primary outcome was CDI recurrence within 180 days of completing CDI treatment. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) as well as mortality and incidence of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) infections at 180 days. Results Of the 198 patients included, 112 were classified as prolonged versus 86 standard duration and 138 were classified as extended versus 60 non-extended duration. After accounting for demographic differences, no difference existed in the primary outcome of CDI recurrence in either prolonged versus standard or extended versus non-extended analysis (all p > 0.05). Patients who received prolonged versus standard CDI treatment had longer LOS (p < 0.0001) while no difference existed in extended versus non-extended (p > 0.05). No difference in mortality existed in prolonged versus standard (p > 0.05) while those who received extended versus non-extended CDI treatment had significantly lower mortality (p = 0.0008). Conclusions Neither prolonging CDI treatment beyond standard duration nor extending duration beyond end of non-CDI antibiotics was associated with decreased CDI recurrence rate.

Introduction: The position paper on critical care pharmacy services describes two tiers of responsibilities: essential and desirable activities. Activities are categorized into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. Documentation of these activities can be important for justifying pharmacist positions, comparing pharmacy practice models, conducting performance evaluations, and tracking individual workload; however, limited recommendations are provided for standardized productivity tracking, and national practices remain largely uncharacterized. Objectives: The purpose of this survey was to describe documentation practices of critical care pharmacist activities. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed via email to 1694 members of the ACCP critical care practice research network. The survey asked respondents to describe the methods used to document productivity as it relates to the 5 domains. Results: Seventy-nine (4.7%) critical care pharmacists from 63 institutions completed the survey. Intervention documentation was used for position justification and annual reviews among 54.4% and 44.1% of pharmacists, respectively. Pharmacists were routinely expected to perform additional responsibilities beyond patient care that contribute to overall productivity, but the percentage of institutions that track these activities as a measure of pharmacist productivity was relatively low: quality improvement (46%), research/scholarship (29%), training/education (38%), and professional development (27%). Documentation of these additional responsibilities and activities was primarily used for annual evaluations, but the majority of respondents answered that no standardized method for tracking activities existed. In multivariate regression, dedicated ICU pharmacists was a significant predictor for increased satisfaction (Exp(ß) 4.498, 95% CI 1.054-19.187, P = .042). Conclusion: Practice variation exists in how and for what intent critical care pharmacists track productivity. Further evaluation and standardization of productivity tracking may aid in position justification and practice model evaluation for dedicated ICU pharmacists in today’s value-based era.