Cargando…

Evaluation of interprovider consistency in interpretation of blood culture guidelines at an academic medical center

Background: Blood cultures are a fundamental tool in the diagnosis of infections, but they can lead to clinical confusion and waste resources when they yield false results. To optimize blood-culture orders at our institution, we developed an evidence-based clinical guideline (Fig. 1) to be used by f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shoucri, Sherif, Li-Geng, Tony, DiTullio, David, Yang, Jenny, Fiore, Emily, Decano, Arnold, Dubrovskaya, Yanina, Mazo, Dana, Zacharioudakis, Ioannis
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594360/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.305
_version_ 1785124632439816192
author Shoucri, Sherif
Li-Geng, Tony
DiTullio, David
Yang, Jenny
Fiore, Emily
Decano, Arnold
Dubrovskaya, Yanina
Mazo, Dana
Zacharioudakis, Ioannis
author_facet Shoucri, Sherif
Li-Geng, Tony
DiTullio, David
Yang, Jenny
Fiore, Emily
Decano, Arnold
Dubrovskaya, Yanina
Mazo, Dana
Zacharioudakis, Ioannis
author_sort Shoucri, Sherif
collection PubMed
description Background: Blood cultures are a fundamental tool in the diagnosis of infections, but they can lead to clinical confusion and waste resources when they yield false results. To optimize blood-culture orders at our institution, we developed an evidence-based clinical guideline (Fig. 1) to be used by frontline providers on nonneutropenic hospitalized adult inpatients. We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients with positive blood cultures to evaluate whether frontline providers and infectious diseases (ID) attending physicians were able to consistently interpret the guidelines to determine whether blood cultures were drawn appropriately. Methods: In total, 95 nonneutropenic adults with an initial positive blood culture collected while on an inpatient unit were identified through a query of the electronic medical record from January 2021 through June 2022. Patients with polymicrobial bacteremia and bacteremia due to Enterococcus, Streptococcus, and gram-positive rods were excluded. Moreover, 4 medical resident physicians reviewed all patients and 2 ID attending physicians reviewed one-quarter of cases; all were blinded to the culture results. Blood cultures were determined to be either appropriately or inappropriately performed based on our institution’s guideline. The free-marginal multirater κ statistics with 95% CIs were calculated to evaluate interrater agreement. Results: Baseline patient demographics are shown in Table 1. Immune compromise without neutropenia was noted in 21 of 95 patients. Most patients were at high risk for bacteremia (72%) per our institutional guideline, most of whom were septic (67.7%). Low risk for bacteremia was found in only 12.3% of reviews. Medical resident physicians, ID attending physicians, and all reviewers combined agreed on whether blood cultures were drawn appropriately or inappropriately (84.2%, 92%, and 86.4% agreement rates, respectively). The free-marginal κ statistic was highest for ID attending physicians (0.84; 95% CI, 0.62–0.78), followed by attending physicians and resident physicians combined (0.73; 95% CI, 0.56–0.90), and resident physicians alone (0.68; 95% CI, 0.58–0.78). In the 21 patients with immune compromise, the agreement rates on blood culture appropriateness remained high among all reviewers, resident physicians, and ID attending physicians were 86.6%, 90.5%, and 95%, respectively. Conclusions: In our retrospective study of nonneutropenic hospitalized adult inpatients, frontline providers and ID attending physicians interpreted blood-culture guidelines consistently, largely agreeing on which patients had cultures drawn appropriately. Agreement among ID attending physicians was excellent and remained substantial among medical resident physicians. Guidelines on the appropriate use of blood cultures are vital to limiting unnecessarily collected cultures, which can lead to extended length of stay and increase cost across hospital systems. Further analyses on the clinical impact of this guideline are ongoing. Disclosures: None
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10594360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105943602023-10-25 Evaluation of interprovider consistency in interpretation of blood culture guidelines at an academic medical center Shoucri, Sherif Li-Geng, Tony DiTullio, David Yang, Jenny Fiore, Emily Decano, Arnold Dubrovskaya, Yanina Mazo, Dana Zacharioudakis, Ioannis Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol Diagnostic/Microbiology Background: Blood cultures are a fundamental tool in the diagnosis of infections, but they can lead to clinical confusion and waste resources when they yield false results. To optimize blood-culture orders at our institution, we developed an evidence-based clinical guideline (Fig. 1) to be used by frontline providers on nonneutropenic hospitalized adult inpatients. We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients with positive blood cultures to evaluate whether frontline providers and infectious diseases (ID) attending physicians were able to consistently interpret the guidelines to determine whether blood cultures were drawn appropriately. Methods: In total, 95 nonneutropenic adults with an initial positive blood culture collected while on an inpatient unit were identified through a query of the electronic medical record from January 2021 through June 2022. Patients with polymicrobial bacteremia and bacteremia due to Enterococcus, Streptococcus, and gram-positive rods were excluded. Moreover, 4 medical resident physicians reviewed all patients and 2 ID attending physicians reviewed one-quarter of cases; all were blinded to the culture results. Blood cultures were determined to be either appropriately or inappropriately performed based on our institution’s guideline. The free-marginal multirater κ statistics with 95% CIs were calculated to evaluate interrater agreement. Results: Baseline patient demographics are shown in Table 1. Immune compromise without neutropenia was noted in 21 of 95 patients. Most patients were at high risk for bacteremia (72%) per our institutional guideline, most of whom were septic (67.7%). Low risk for bacteremia was found in only 12.3% of reviews. Medical resident physicians, ID attending physicians, and all reviewers combined agreed on whether blood cultures were drawn appropriately or inappropriately (84.2%, 92%, and 86.4% agreement rates, respectively). The free-marginal κ statistic was highest for ID attending physicians (0.84; 95% CI, 0.62–0.78), followed by attending physicians and resident physicians combined (0.73; 95% CI, 0.56–0.90), and resident physicians alone (0.68; 95% CI, 0.58–0.78). In the 21 patients with immune compromise, the agreement rates on blood culture appropriateness remained high among all reviewers, resident physicians, and ID attending physicians were 86.6%, 90.5%, and 95%, respectively. Conclusions: In our retrospective study of nonneutropenic hospitalized adult inpatients, frontline providers and ID attending physicians interpreted blood-culture guidelines consistently, largely agreeing on which patients had cultures drawn appropriately. Agreement among ID attending physicians was excellent and remained substantial among medical resident physicians. Guidelines on the appropriate use of blood cultures are vital to limiting unnecessarily collected cultures, which can lead to extended length of stay and increase cost across hospital systems. Further analyses on the clinical impact of this guideline are ongoing. Disclosures: None Cambridge University Press 2023-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10594360/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.305 Text en © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Diagnostic/Microbiology
Shoucri, Sherif
Li-Geng, Tony
DiTullio, David
Yang, Jenny
Fiore, Emily
Decano, Arnold
Dubrovskaya, Yanina
Mazo, Dana
Zacharioudakis, Ioannis
Evaluation of interprovider consistency in interpretation of blood culture guidelines at an academic medical center
title Evaluation of interprovider consistency in interpretation of blood culture guidelines at an academic medical center
title_full Evaluation of interprovider consistency in interpretation of blood culture guidelines at an academic medical center
title_fullStr Evaluation of interprovider consistency in interpretation of blood culture guidelines at an academic medical center
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of interprovider consistency in interpretation of blood culture guidelines at an academic medical center
title_short Evaluation of interprovider consistency in interpretation of blood culture guidelines at an academic medical center
title_sort evaluation of interprovider consistency in interpretation of blood culture guidelines at an academic medical center
topic Diagnostic/Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10594360/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.305
work_keys_str_mv AT shoucrisherif evaluationofinterproviderconsistencyininterpretationofbloodcultureguidelinesatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT ligengtony evaluationofinterproviderconsistencyininterpretationofbloodcultureguidelinesatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT ditulliodavid evaluationofinterproviderconsistencyininterpretationofbloodcultureguidelinesatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT yangjenny evaluationofinterproviderconsistencyininterpretationofbloodcultureguidelinesatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT fioreemily evaluationofinterproviderconsistencyininterpretationofbloodcultureguidelinesatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT decanoarnold evaluationofinterproviderconsistencyininterpretationofbloodcultureguidelinesatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT dubrovskayayanina evaluationofinterproviderconsistencyininterpretationofbloodcultureguidelinesatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT mazodana evaluationofinterproviderconsistencyininterpretationofbloodcultureguidelinesatanacademicmedicalcenter
AT zacharioudakisioannis evaluationofinterproviderconsistencyininterpretationofbloodcultureguidelinesatanacademicmedicalcenter