Antibiotic treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is prevalent but often contrary to published guidelines.

To evaluate risk factors for treatment of ASB.

Retrospective observational study.

A tertiary academic hospital, county hospital, and community hospital.

Hospitalized adults with bacteriuria.

Patients without documented symptoms of urinary tract infection per Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria were classified as ASB. We examined ASB treatment risk factors as well as broad-spectrum antibiotic usage and quantified diagnostic concordance between IDSA and National Healthcare Safety Network criteria.

Among 300 patients with bacteriuria, ASB was present in 71% by IDSA criteria. By National Healthcare Safety Network criteria, 71% of patients had ASB; within-patient diagnostic concordance with IDSA was moderate (kappa, 0.52). After excluding those given antibiotics for nonurinary indications, antibiotics were given to 38% (62/164) with ASB. Factors significantly associated with ASB treatment were elevated urine white cell count (65 vs 24 white blood cells per high-powered field, P<.01), hospital identity (hospital C vs A, odds ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.14–0.80], P =.01), presence of leukocyte esterase (5.48 [2.35–12.79], P<.01), presence of nitrites (2.45 [1.11–5.41], P=.03), and Escherichia coli on culture (2.4 [1.2–4.7], P=.01). Of patients treated for ASB, broad-spectrum antibiotics were used in 84%.

ASB treatment was prevalent across settings and contributed to broad-spectrum antibiotic use. Associating abnormal urinalysis results with the need for antibiotic treatment regardless of symptoms may drive unnecessary antibiotic use.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37(3):319–326

Whether contact precautions (CP) are required to control the endemic transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in acute care hospitals is controversial in light of improvements in hand hygiene, MRSA decolonization, environmental cleaning and disinfection, fomite elimination, and chlorhexidine bathing.

To provide a framework for decision making around use of CP for endemic MRSA and VRE based on a summary of evidence related to use of CP, including impact on patients and patient care processes, and current practices in use of CP for MRSA and VRE in US hospitals.

A literature review, a survey of Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network members on use of CP, and a detailed examination of the experience of a convenience sample of hospitals not using CP for MRSA or VRE.

Hospital epidemiologists and infection prevention experts.

No high quality data support or reject use of CP for endemic MRSA or VRE. Our survey found more than 90% of responding hospitals currently use CP for MRSA and VRE, but approximately 60% are interested in using CP in a different manner. More than 30 US hospitals do not use CP for control of endemic MRSA or VRE.

Higher quality research on the benefits and harms of CP in the control of endemic MRSA and VRE is needed. Until more definitive data are available, the use of CP for endemic MRSA or VRE in acute care hospitals should be guided by local needs and resources.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36(10):1163–1172