4.3 Article

Impact of routine urine cultures on antibiotic usage in those undergoing a routine annual spinal cord injury evaluation

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41393-023-00938-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The annual evaluation of SCI/D patients in the Veterans Health Administration often involves urine testing and subsequent antibiotic use, which may be an important focus for antibiotic stewardship programs.
Objective: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest single provider of spinal cord injury and disorder (SCI/D) care in the United States, currently mandates that every patient receives a screening urine culture during the annual evaluation, a yearly comprehensive history and physical examination. This testing has shown in a small subset of patients to overidentify asymptomatic bacteriuria that is then inappropriately treated with antibiotics. The objective of the current analysis was to assess the association of the annual evaluation on urine testing and antibiotic treatment in a national sample of Veterans with SCI/D.Design/method: A retrospective cohort study using national VHA electronic health record data of Veterans with SCI/D seen between October 1, 2017-September 30, 2019 for their annual evaluation.Results: There were 9447 Veterans with SCI/D who received an annual evaluation; 5088 (54%) had a urine culture obtained. 2910 cultures (57%) were positive; E. coli was the most common organism obtained (12.9% of total urine cultures). Of the patients with positive urine cultures, 386 were prescribed antibiotics within the 7 days after that encounter (13%); of the patients with negative cultures (n = 2178), 121 (6%) were prescribed antibiotics; thus, a positive urine culture was a significant driver of antibiotic use (p < 0.001).Conclusion: The urine cultures ordered at the annual exam are often followed by antibiotics; this practice may be an important target for antibiotic stewardship programs in SCI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据