English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Evidence evaluating prescribing patterns in antibiotic (ABC) prophylaxis (PPX) for urology (UGY) procedures is limited. Although national guidelines give direction on the ABC PPX for specific procedures, ABC PPX should also be based on local ABC resistance patterns, individual host factors and procedure type factors. Our institution’s urine culture antibiogram illustrates increasing resistance to Cefazolin, a national guideline preferred ABC. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of a quality improvement intervention on prescribing practices for ABC PPX in patients undergoing UGY procedures. Methods This is a retrospective study evaluating all patients receiving perioperative ABC PPX for UGY procedures from 01/01/2019 to 07/31/2019. The intervention (focusing on UGY provider education for ABC PPX based on local ABC resistance patterns, host factors and UGY procedure type) occurred on multiple in-person sessions during 04/2019. Emphasis occurred with replacing Cefazolin with Ceftriaxone, given local resistance patterns. We compared patient characteristics, appropriate ABC PPX use (deemed by local ABC Stewardship Team) and postoperative infections between the “pre” (01/01/2019 – 03/31/2019) and “post” (05/01/2019 – 07/31/2019) groups. Results The “pre” group had 85 patients and the “post” group had 80 patients. 62% had a same day UGY procedure with the most common procedures designated as “clean-contaminated” (81.8%) and ASA physical status classification as “ASA II” (53.9%). After the intervention, appropriate ABC PPX choice improved (14.5% to 76%, P &amp;lt; 0.001) based on local ABC resistance patterns. No significant difference is noted in urine culture collection before procedure (36.4% to 43.7%, P = 0.3), ABC PPX choice based on prior patient-specific culture results including multi-drug resistant pathogens (75% to 82.3%, P = 0.6), use of ABC PPX post-procedure (40% to 35%, P = 0.5) and postoperative infections (7% to 11.2%, P = 0.4). Conclusion Utilization of education sessions as a quality improvement intervention resulted in significant improvement in ABC PPX choice for UGY procedures based on local ABC resistance patterns. Further interventions are necessary to optimize additional areas related to ABC PPX use for UGY procedures. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

234. Improving Antibiotic Prophylaxis Selection for Patients Undergoing Urology Procedures