Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-trf7k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-13T06:26:23.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Optimizing Urine Culture Utilization in the Emergency Department, a Study from South India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2025

Krishna Suresh
Affiliation:
KIMSHEALTH
Dheeraj Mohan
Affiliation:
KIMSHEALTH
Rajalakshmi Ananthanarayanan
Affiliation:
KIMSHEALTH
Muhammed Niyas
Affiliation:
KIMSHEALTH

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Background: Inappropriate urine culture can lead to unnecessary antibiotic use, antimicrobial resistance, increased healthcare costs, and resource strain. Ensuring the appropriate use of urine cultures aligns with principles of diagnostic stewardship. Methods: Urine cultures ordered from ED in our hospital, for patients who were admitted during July and August 2024 were retrieved from the electronic medical records. Symptoms score based on IDSA guideline (Figure 1) and BLADDER score (Figure 2) were correlated with urine analysis (URE) and cultures for appropriateness. Results: Among 267 urine culture orders that were reviewed, 61 patients were excluded due to indwelling catheter, high-risk neutropenia, recent urological procedures, pregnancy, or recent renal transplantation. The median age of study population (n=206) was 64 years. 50.50% were women. 97 (47.3%) had significant pyuria, and 105 (50.97%) had a positive leukocyte esterase (LE), nitrite positivity was low 13 (6.3%). LE had better correlation with pyuria and culture positivity when compared to urine nitrites. Only 46 patients (22.3%) had culture positivity. Imaging evidence supportive of urinary tract infection was noted in 18 patients. Among 206, only 102 cultures (50.48%) were appropriate as per IDSA guidelines. Inappropriate cultures were ordered for fever (59.6%) without localisation, abdominal discomfort (8.6%), urinary frequency (2.8%), haematuria (1.9%), incontinence (0.9%). 10% were sent as part of order sets, who were asymptomatic and had no significant pyuria or cultures positivity. Among 87 patients with a BLADDER score ≥2, 95.4% of cultures were appropriate, 64.3% had significant pyuria, 36.8% had culture positivity. Among 119 patients with a score < 2, 15.9% of cultures were appropriate, 34.5% had significant pyuria, 11.8% had culture positivity. Positive predictive value (PPV) of BLADDER score for UTI was 77.0%, 89.3% along with pyuria and 88.23 % when combined with pyuria and positive LE. Negative predictive value (NPV) of BLADDER score for UTI was 88.2%, 100% along with absence of pyuria and 100% when combined with absence of pyuria and negative LE (Table 1). Based on our study the proposed algorithm for ordering urine culture, after excluding the high risk group is depicted in the Figure 3. Conclusion: Our study showed 50% of urine culture as inappropriate. BLADDER score can be a useful bedside screening tool for deciding urine culture, PPV and NPV increase when combined with presence or absence of pyuria and LE. Implementing a diagnostic stewardship protocol in urine culture has the potential to improve culture appropriateness, reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.

Information

Type
Diagnostic Stewardship
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
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.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America