Logo image
Back
P-1864. Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) Practice Survey Updates 2025
Abstract   Open access   Peer reviewed

P-1864. Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) Practice Survey Updates 2025

Monica V Mahoney, Christina G Rivera (O'Connor), Laila M Castellino, Susan E Beekmann, Philip M Polgreen and Sara C Keller
Open forum infectious diseases, Vol.13(Supplement_1)
01/11/2026
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaf695.2033
PMCID: PMC12792422
url
https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf695.2033View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

Background Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) practice has continued to increase. We sought to understand current OPAT practices in a survey of U. S. clinicians. Methods A survey instrument was developed by ID physicians, pharmacists and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Emerging Infections Network (EIN) staff, utilizing prior EIN OPAT surveys. The survey focused on respondents’ role, responsibilities, time devoted to OPAT, structure of OPAT provision, location where OPAT is received, institutional support and oversight, role of complex outpatient antimicrobial therapy (COpAT) including oral antimicrobials and long-acting injectable agents, and barriers to safe OPAT care. The confidential survey was distributed to adult EIN members from Feb to March 2025. Results Overall, 622 (38%) EIN members responded to the survey, of whom 469 with a role in managing OPAT patients were eligible to complete the survey. OPAT teams varied across programs with nearly all involving ID physicians (98%), majority involving ID/OPAT pharmacists (61%), nurses (60%), and nearly half involving administrative staff (48%) and advanced practice providers (APPs, 47%). ID consultation for OPAT enrollment was required in 60% of programs. Many programs (59%) report including COpAT. Response to outpatient lab results was largely managed by ID physicians (75%); however, multidisciplinary OPAT teams (37%), pharmacists (33%), and inpatient ID physicians (30%) were also frequently involved. Lab values were most often available via fax/email (43%) or electronic health record (EHR, 41%). Nearly 25% of programs “often/always” required proactive outreach to obtain safety labs. Overall, many programs lacked data analysis, administrative, information technology, and financial support (Figure 1). Challenges faced by OPAT programs included lack of leadership awareness of the value of OPAT (51%), difficulty managing patients with substance use disorder (50%), access to timely lab values (48%), personnel to retrieve missing lab values (46%), and struggles with the EHR (43%) (Figure 2). Conclusion Compared to EIN OPAT surveys in 2013 and 2019, programs have grown in size and composition, and expanded to COpAT. Similar problems persist regarding perceived lack of support. Disclosures Monica V. Mahoney, PharmD, BCPS, BCIDP, FCCP, FIDSA, FIDP, FMSHP, gsk: Advisor/Consultant|seqirus: Advisor/Consultant Philip M. Polgreen, MD, Eli Lily: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support Sara C. Keller, MD, MPH, MSPH, CorMedix: Grant/Research Support
 Electronic Health Records Advisors Pharmacists

Details

Metrics

3 Record Views
Logo image