Table 1.

Survey responses

Survey response		Facility complexity			Facility location
	Number of responsesa	High (n=78)	Low (n=42)	p-value	Rural (n=24)	Urban (n=96)	p-value
Laboratory practices
No CRE cases seen at facility	120	16 (20.5%)	25 (59.5%)	<0.01	19 (79.2%)	83 (86.5%)	0.35
Use carbapenem MIC to initially identify CRE	120	65 (83.3%)	30 (71.4%)	0.16	17 (70.8%)	78 (81.3%)	0.27
Provide preliminary report of CRE to IC	118	61 (78.2%)	24 (60.0%)	0.05	13 (56.5%)	72 (75.8%)	0.07
Confirm carbapenemase production	118	65 (83.3%)	26 (65%)	0.03	15 (65.2%)	76 (80.0%)	0.17
If yes, confirm with PCR	91	43 (82.7%)	9 (17.3%)	0.01	6 (11.5%)	46 (88.5%)	0.16
Implementationb
Lab involved in guidelines implementation	119	65 (83.3%)	30 (73.2%)	0.23	14 (58.3%)	81 (85.3%)	0.01
Generally knowledgeable about guidelines	119	71 (91.0%)	28 (68.3%)	<0.01	16 (66.7%)	83 (87.4%)	0.03
Knowledgeable about laboratory procedures	118	71 (91.0%)	30 (83.3%)	0.01	16 (69.6%)	85 (89.5%)	0.02
Comfortable executing guidelines	118	67 (87.0%)	30 (73.2%)	0.08	15 (65.2%)	82 (86.3%)	0.03
Adequate national dissemination of guidelines	118	54 (70.1%)	19 (46.3%)	0.02	10 (43.5%)	63 (66.3%)	0.06
Adequate local resources required for implementation	118	54 (70.1%)	17 (41.5%)	<0.01	9 (39.1%)	62 (65.3%)	0.03
Education/training	118	56 (72.7%)	21 (51.2%)	0.03	10 (43.5%)	67 (70.5%)	0.03
Staffing	118	47 (61.0%)	19 (46.3%)	0.17	6 (26.1%)	60 (63.2%)	<0.01
Physical	118	37 (48.1%)	16 (39.0%)	0.43	8 (34.8%)	45 (47.4%)	0.35
Laboratory	118	55 (71.4%)	21 (51.2%)	0.04	9 (39.1%)	67 (70.5%)	<0.01

CRE, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae; MIC, minimum inhibitory concentration; IC, infection control

^aNumber of facilities who answered that particular question out of the 120 total facilities responding to the survey. Percentages are calculating using the number of facilities responding to a particular question.

^bResponses considered positive for implementation questions were ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’