Variation in Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Outpatient Pediatric Urological Procedures at United States Children’s Hospitals

• Published in: The Journal of urology Vol. 197; no. 3; pp. 944 - 950
• Main Authors: Chan, Katherine H, Bell, Teresa, Cain, Mark, Carroll, Aaron, Benneyworth, Brian D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.03.2017
• Subjects: antibiotic prophylaxis; outpatients; pediatrics; physician’s; practice patterns; Urology; SAP; surgical site infection; SSI; clinical transaction classification; practice patterns; CTC; CV; surgical antibiotic prophylaxis; urology; pediatrics; antibiotic prophylaxis; outpatients; physician’s; coefficient of variation
• ISSN: 0022-5347; 1527-3792
• DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.115

Purpose Guidelines recommend surgical antibiotic prophylaxis for clean-contaminated procedures but none for clean procedures. The purpose of this study was to describe variations in surgical antibiotic prophylaxis for outpatient urological procedures at United States children’s hospitals. Materials and Methods Using the PHIS (Pediatric Health Information System®) database we performed a retrospective cohort study of patients younger than 18 years who underwent clean and/or clean-contaminated outpatient urological procedures from 2012 to 2014. We excluded those with concurrent nonurological procedures or an abscess/infected wound. We compared perioperative antibiotic charges for clean vs clean-contaminated procedures using a multilevel logistic regression model with a random effect for hospital. We also examined whether hospitals that were guideline compliant for clean procedures, defined as no surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, were also compliant for clean-contaminated procedures using the Pearson correlation coefficient. We examined hospital level variation in antibiotic rates using the coefficient of variation. Results A total of 131,256 patients with a median age of 34 months at 39 hospitals met study inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing clean procedures were 14% less likely to receive guideline compliant surgical antibiotic prophylaxis than patients undergoing clean-contaminated procedures (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.84–0.88, p <0.0001). Hospitals that used antibiotics appropriately for clean-contaminated procedures were more likely to use antibiotics inappropriately for clean procedures (r = 0.7, p = 0.01). Greater variation was seen for hospital level compliance with surgical antibiotic prophylaxis for clean-contaminated procedures (range 9.8% to 97.8%, coefficient of variation 0.36) than for clean procedures (range 35.0% to 98.2%, coefficient of variation 0.20). Conclusions Hospitals that used surgical antibiotic prophylaxis appropriately for clean-contaminated procedures were likely to use surgical antibiotic prophylaxis inappropriately for clean procedures. More variation was seen in hospital level guideline compliance for clean-contaminated procedures.