Clinicians and laboratories routinely use urinalysis (UA) parameters to determine whether antimicrobial treatment and/or urine cultures are needed. Yet the performance of individual UA parameters and common thresholds for action are not well defined and may vary across different patient populations.

In this retrospective cohort study, we included all encounters with UAs ordered 24 hours prior to a urine culture between 2015 and 2020 at 3 North Carolina hospitals. We evaluated the performance of relevant UA parameters as potential outcome predictors, including sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). We also combined 18 different UA criteria and used receiver operating curves to identify the 5 best-performing models for predicting significant bacteriuria (≥100,000 colony-forming units of bacteria/mL).

In 221,933 encounters during the 6-year study period, no single UA parameter had both high sensitivity and high specificity in predicting bacteriuria. Absence of leukocyte esterase and pyuria had a high NPV for significant bacteriuria. Combined UA parameters did not perform better than pyuria alone with regard to NPV. The high NPV ≥0.90 of pyuria was maintained among most patient subgroups except females aged ≥65 years and patients with indwelling catheters.

When used as a part of a diagnostic workup, UA parameters should be leveraged for their NPV instead of sensitivity. Because many laboratories and hospitals use reflex urine culture algorithms, their workflow should include clinical decision support and or education to target symptomatic patients and focus on populations where absence of pyuria has high NPV.

The typical 5-day work week affects healthcare outcomes. Structured work hours have also been implicated in antimicrobial prescribing choice. We developed a visualization tool to aid in evaluating breadth of antibiotic use in various time (day of week and hour of day) and space (patient location) combinations.

We evaluated antibiotic administration data from a tertiary-care academic medical center between July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2020. We calculated a cumulative empiric antibiotic spectrum score by adapting a previously validated antibiotic spectrum index (ASI) and applying that score to empiric antibiotic use. We visualized these data as a heat map based on various day-of-week–time combinations and then compared the distribution of scores between weekday nights, weekend days, and weekend nights to the typical workweek hours (weekday days, weekday days) using the Mann-Whitney U nonparametric test with a Bonferroni correction.

The analysis included 76,535 antibiotic starts across 53,900 unique patient admissions over 2 years. The mean cumulative ASI was higher in all 3 night and weekend combinations (weekday nights, 7.3; weekend days, 7.6; weekend nights, 7.5) compared to the weekday daytime hours (weekday days, 7.1) and the distribution of scores was different in all groups compared to the weekday daytime reference. The cumulative ASI was also higher in intensive care units.

Empiric antibiotic prescribing patterns differed across space and time; broader antibiotic choices occurred in the intensive care units and on nights and weekends. Visualization of these patterns aids in antimicrobial prescribing pattern recognition and may assist in finding opportunities for additional antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

To determine the usefulness of adjusting antibiotic use (AU) by prevalence of bacterial isolates as an alternative method for risk adjustment beyond hospital characteristics.

Retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study.

Hospitals in the southeastern United States.

AU in days of therapy per 1,000 patient days and microbiologic data from 2015 and 2016 were collected from 26 hospitals. The prevalences of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)–producing bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) were calculated and compared to the average prevalence of all hospitals in the network. This proportion was used to calculate the adjusted AU (a-AU) for various categories of antimicrobials. For example, a-AU of antipseudomonal β-lactams (APBL) was the AU of APBL divided by (prevalence of P. aeruginosa at that hospital divided by the average prevalence of P. aeruginosa). Hospitals were categorized by bed size and ranked by AU and a-AU, and the rankings were compared.

Most hospitals in 2015 and 2016, respectively, moved ≥2 positions in the ranking using a-AU of APBL (15 of 24, 63%; 22 of 26, 85%), carbapenems (14 of 23, 61%; 22 of 25; 88%), anti-MRSA agents (13 of 23, 57%; 18 of 26, 69%), and anti-VRE agents (18 of 24, 75%; 15 of 26, 58%). Use of a-AU resulted in a shift in quartile of hospital ranking for 50% of APBL agents, 57% of carbapenems, 35% of anti-MRSA agents, and 75% of anti-VRE agents in 2015 and 50% of APBL agents, 28% of carbapenems, 50% of anti-MRSA agents, and 58% of anti-VRE agents in 2016.

The a-AU considerably changes how hospitals compare among each other within a network. Adjusting AU by microbiological burden allows for a more balanced comparison among hospitals with variable baseline rates of resistant bacteria.