z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Optimal Urine Culture Diagnostic Stewardship Practice—Results from an Expert Modified-Delphi Procedure
Author(s) -
Kimberly C. Claeys,
Barbara W. Trautner,
Surbhi Leekha,
Kelly Coffey,
Christopher J. Crnich,
Daniel J. Diekema,
Mohamad G. Fakih,
Matthew Bidwell Goetz,
Kalpana Gupta,
Makoto Jones,
Luci K. Leykum,
Stephen Y. Liang,
Lisa Pineles,
Ashley Pleiss,
Emily S Spivak,
Katie J. Suda,
Jennifer M. Taylor,
Chanu Rhee,
Daniel J. Morgan
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
clinical infectious diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.44
H-Index - 336
eISSN - 1537-6591
pISSN - 1058-4838
DOI - 10.1093/cid/ciab987
Subject(s) - medicine , delphi method , urinalysis , antimicrobial stewardship , best practice , thematic analysis , delphi , medline , urine , intensive care medicine , family medicine , qualitative research , antibiotics , social science , statistics , mathematics , management , antibiotic resistance , sociology , computer science , law , political science , microbiology and biotechnology , economics , biology , operating system
Background Urine cultures are nonspecific and often lead to misdiagnosis of urinary tract infection and unnecessary antibiotics. Diagnostic stewardship is a set of procedures that modifies test ordering, processing, and reporting in order to optimize diagnosis and downstream treatment. In this study, we aimed to develop expert guidance on best practices for urine culture diagnostic stewardship. Methods A RAND-modified Delphi approach with a multidisciplinary expert panel was used to ascertain diagnostic stewardship best practices. Clinical questions to guide recommendations were grouped into three thematic areas (ordering, processing, reporting) in practice settings of emergency department, inpatient, ambulatory, and long-term care. Fifteen experts ranked recommendations on a 9-point Likert scale. Recommendations on which the panel did not reach agreement were discussed during a virtual meeting, then a second round of ranking by email was completed. After secondary review of results and panel discussion, a series of guidance statements was developed. Results One hundred and sixty-five questions were reviewed. The panel reaching agreement on 104, leading to 18 overarching guidance statements. The following strategies were recommended to optimize ordering urine cultures: requiring documentation of symptoms, sending alerts to discourage ordering in the absence of symptoms, and cancelling repeat cultures. For urine culture processing, conditional urine cultures and urine white blood cell count as criteria were supported. For urine culture reporting, appropriate practices included nudges to discourage treatment under specific conditions and selective reporting of antibiotics to guide therapy decisions. Conclusions These 18 guidance statements can optimize use of urine cultures for better patient outcomes.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom