Annie I Chen1, Warren B Bilker2, Keith W Hamilton3, Judith A O'Donnell3, Irving Nachamkin4. 1. 1Cell and Molecular Biology Graduate Group,Perelman School of Medicine,University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. 2. 2Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics,Perelman School of Medicine,University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. 3. 3Department of Medicine,Division of Infectious Diseases,Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania. 4. 4Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine,Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the pattern of blood culture utilization in an academic university hospital setting. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A 789-bed tertiary-care university hospital that processes 40,000+blood cultures annually. METHODS: We analyzed blood cultures collected from adult inpatients at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015. Descriptive statistics and regression models were used to analyze patterns of blood culture utilization: frequency of blood cultures, use of repeat cultures following a true-positive culture, and number of sets drawn per day. RESULTS: In total, 38,939 blood culture sets were drawn during 126,537 patient days (incidence rate, 307.7 sets per 1,000 patient days). The median number of blood culture sets drawn per hospital encounter was 2 (range, 1-76 sets). The median interval between blood cultures was 2 days (range, 1-71 days). Oncology services and cultures with gram-positive cocci were significantly associated with greater odds of having repeat blood cultures drawn the following day. Emergency services had the highest rate of drawing single blood-culture sets (16.9%), while oncology services had the highest frequency of drawing ≥5 blood culture sets within 24 hours (0.91%). Approximately 10% of encounters had at least 1 true-positive culture, and 89.2% of those encounters had repeat blood cultures drawn. The relative risk of a patient having repeat blood cultures was lower for those in emergency, surgery, and oncology services than for those in general medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Ordering practices differed by service and culture results. Analyzing blood culture utilization can contribute to the development of guidelines and benchmarks for appropriate usage.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the pattern of blood culture utilization in an academic university hospital setting. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A 789-bed tertiary-care university hospital that processes 40,000+blood cultures annually. METHODS: We analyzed blood cultures collected from adult inpatients at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015. Descriptive statistics and regression models were used to analyze patterns of blood culture utilization: frequency of blood cultures, use of repeat cultures following a true-positive culture, and number of sets drawn per day. RESULTS: In total, 38,939 blood culture sets were drawn during 126,537 patient days (incidence rate, 307.7 sets per 1,000 patient days). The median number of blood culture sets drawn per hospital encounter was 2 (range, 1-76 sets). The median interval between blood cultures was 2 days (range, 1-71 days). Oncology services and cultures with gram-positive cocci were significantly associated with greater odds of having repeat blood cultures drawn the following day. Emergency services had the highest rate of drawing single blood-culture sets (16.9%), while oncology services had the highest frequency of drawing ≥5 blood culture sets within 24 hours (0.91%). Approximately 10% of encounters had at least 1 true-positive culture, and 89.2% of those encounters had repeat blood cultures drawn. The relative risk of a patient having repeat blood cultures was lower for those in emergency, surgery, and oncology services than for those in general medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Ordering practices differed by service and culture results. Analyzing blood culture utilization can contribute to the development of guidelines and benchmarks for appropriate usage.
Authors: Robert Garcia; Sue Barnes; Roy Boukidjian; Linda Kaye Goss; Maureen Spencer; Edward J Septimus; Marc-Oliver Wright; Shannon Munro; Sara M Reese; Mohamad G Fakih; Charles E Edmiston; Martin Levesque Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.303
Authors: Kathrin Rothe; Christoph D Spinner; Armin Ott; Christiane Querbach; Michael Dommasch; Cassandra Aldrich; Friedemann Gebhardt; Jochen Schneider; Roland M Schmid; Dirk H Busch; Juri Katchanov Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sivasubramanium V Bhavani; Zachary Lonjers; Kyle A Carey; Majid Afshar; Emily R Gilbert; Nirav S Shah; Elbert S Huang; Matthew M Churpek Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 9.296