Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (2019), 40, 109–110 doi:10.1017/ice.2018.278
Research Brief
Impact of tiered interventions to decrease routine urine cultures in asymptomatic patients undergoing arthroplasty
Ebony C. Jackson PharmD1, Xia C. Thai PharmD, BCPS1, Lou Ann Bruno-Murtha, DO2,3 and Amanda E. Barner PharmD, BCPS1 1Department of Pharmacy, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2Division of Infectious Disease, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge,
Massachusetts and 3Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (Received 1 August 2018; accepted 6 October 2018; electronically published 5 November 2018)
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication after joint arthroplasty. Our institution performed preoperative screening and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) prior to joint replacements. This is a common practice despite a lack of evidence showing benefit or a decrease in postoperative PJI.1,2 This practice can lead to increased rates of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection, multidrug-resistant organisms, higher costs, and adverse reactions. Furthermore, in patients who have both ASB and PJI, studies show that the causative organisms are usually discordant.3 In April 2016, the antimicrobial stewardship team (AST) met with the orthopedic surgery department to provide education and recommended removing routine urine culture from preoperative order sets for joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the impact of education alone followed by the removal of urineculture from thepreoperativeorder seton screening and treatment of ASB prior to elective hip and knee joint arthroplasty.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective chart review of all adult patients undergoing elective total knee or hip replacement over 3 years, divided into 3 phases: baseline (April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016), the edu- cation phase (April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017), and the electronic health record (EHR) intervention (April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018). The AST provided education for the orthopedic department with a follow-up discussion 3 months later at a quality meeting. The EHR intervention was removal of urine culture from the preoperative order set. Although our initial goal was to immediately remove urine culture from preoperative order set, it was not implemented until a year later, resulting in a 3-phase project. The primary outcome was the number of urine cultures processed in phases 2 and 3, compared to the baseline. Secondary outcomes included the number of positive cultures, rates of PJI, ASB/PJI organism concordance, antibiotics prescribed for ASB, 90-day readmission, and laboratory cost savings. The data were identified through an infection control report of elective joint replacement procedures and included patient
Author for correspondence: Ebony C. Jackson, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cam- bridge, MA. E-mail:
ecjackson@challiance.org
Cite this article: Jackson EC, et al. (2019). Impact of tiered interventions to decrease
routine urine cultures in asymptomatic patients undergoing arthroplasty. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2019, 40, 109–110. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.278
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.
demographics, type and date of procedure, diabetic status, and PJI according to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) definition.4 Additional data collected via chart review included smoking status; whether or not a urine culture was processed with corresponding results; antibiotics prescribed; and preoperative signs and symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI) including frequency, urgency, dysuria, and/or suprapubic pain. Patients ≥18 years old undergoing elective total hip or knee replacements were included. Patients were excluded if they had documented symptoms of a UTI during the preoperative visit or underwent a hemiarthroplasty. Asymptomatic bacteriuria was defined as growth of ≥105 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL) of bacteria in an appropriately collected urine specimen obtained from a person without signs or symptoms.5,6 Contaminated specimens were defined as >2 species of bacteria. A process control chart (P-chart) with control limits set at 3 standard deviations (SD) was used to analyze the primary outcome. Consecutive points below the lower control limits represents a significant decrease equivalent to P<.01. We used the χ2 and the Fisher exact tests to assess secondary outcomes. Statistical significance was predefined as P value<.05.
Results
During the study period, 339 patients underwent hip or knee arthroplasty. We excluded 59 patients for hemiarthroplasty and 5 patients for UTI. Among the 275 patients included, the median age was 64 years (range, 23–88 years), and 67.6% were women. Knee replacements accounted for 195 cases (71.0%). In addition, 57 patients (20.7%) had diabetes and 6 patients (2.2%) were smokers. At baseline, 86 of 90 patients had urine cultures processed (96%;
95%CI, 89%–99%).The number of urine cultures decreased to 31 of 91 patients (34%; 95% CI, 25%–45%) in phase 2, and decreased sig- nificantly in phase 3, in which 2 of 94 patients had urine cultures processed (2%; 95% CI, 0%–7%; P<.001) (Fig. 1). The corresponding relative risk reductionswere 34%(phase 1 vs phase 2) and98%(phase 1 vs 3).Treatment ofASBalso decreased,with 5 patients treated (5.6%) in phase 1 versus no patients treated (0.0%) in phase 3 (P=.03). We observed no difference in the rates of PJIs among phases 1, 2, and 3: 1 (1.1%), 0 (0.0%), and 1 (1.1%), respectively (P=.44 and 1.0). No concordance was observed among organisms causing ASB and PJI (see Supplemental Table 1).
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
