Improving Antibiotic Use in Pediatric Preseptal Cellulitis Using a Clinical Practice Guideline.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) on antibiotic use and resource utilization for pediatric preseptal cellulitis. METHODS: This retrospective quasiexperimental study included patients between the age of 2 months and 17 years admitted for preseptal cellulitis between January 2013 and December 2023. The preseptal cellulitis CPG was implemented in December 2020 using a multifaceted strategy that included buy-in from key stakeholders, education of frontline providers, the official CPG launch, and stakeholder check-ins. The primary outcome was the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, including dual/triple therapy and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) active antibiotics. The secondary outcome was resource utilization including blood testing and imaging. Outcomes were compared pre- and post-CPG implementation using the Fisher exact test and logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of 236 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 175 and 61 patients composed the pre- and post-CPG cohorts, respectively. Median age (interquartile range) was 4.0 (1.8-8.3) years and 46% of the population were female. Post-CPG implementation changes in empirical antibiotic use included decreases in broad-spectrum use from 100% to 66% (P < .001), dual/triple therapy from 47% to 16% (P < .001), and MRSA active agents from 86% to 26% (P < .001). There was a decrease in complete blood count and blood culture orders from 75% to 57% (P = .014) and 32% to 18% (P = .047), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, including dual/triple therapy and MRSA active antibiotics for the treatment of pediatric preseptal cellulitis, decreased after CPG implementation.

Is chest imaging needed as part of pT1a renal cell carcinoma surveillance after surgical resection?

INTRODUCTION: Following surgical excision of pT1a renal cell carcinoma (RCC), 2% to 5% will recur, with 50% to 60% being lung metastases. The ideal surveillance strategy to identify recurrences is unclear. Guidelines are mixed, with NCCN and AUA recommending surveillance via chest x-ray (CXR) at least annually for 5 years, while EAU guidelines do not specifically recommend the use of CXR. In an effort to clarify the utility of surveillance CXR, we retrospectively evaluated pT1a patients following surgical treatment at a single institution. METHODS: We performed retrospective analysis of unique patients who underwent surgical excision of pT1 RCC between January 2000 and January 2020. In addition to demographic information, we collected RCC pathology, recurrence details, and most recent chest imaging. We excluded non-RCC pathology, and patients with pulmonary nodules on baseline imaging. RESULTS: We identified 463 unique patients (mean age 58.3 years, range 23-87) that underwent surgical excision of pT1a RCC with mean follow-up of 47.6 months (range 1-201). On the most recent pulmonary surveillance imaging, 72.4% (335/463) had CXR while 27.6% (128/463) had chest CT performed. Regardless of modality, pulmonary recurrence was not detected on any surveillance imaging (0/463). CONCLUSION: In patients without baseline preoperative lung pathology, we found that there is questionable clinical value in surveillance for pulmonary recurrence after resection of pT1a RCC.

Chaperones Utilization in Clinical Practice: Intimate and Sensitive Physical Examination Best Practice Strategies and Concepts in Modern Urological Medicine.

The intention of utilizing chaperones during sensitive physical exams is to show respect to the patient, while simultaneously providing protection to both the patient and the medical provider. Despite clinical practice recommendations to offer chaperones for sensitive urologic exams, there is no data regarding the consistency of chaperone utilization. Our aim was to summarize the patient and provider perspectives on the role of chaperones in urology as well as identify barriers to implement chaperone consistency. In the present investigation, we conducted a systematic review of prospective, case-control, and retrospective studies and followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for data reporting. Studies were identified from PubMed, MEDLINE, and PMC using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "chaperones, patient", "chaperones, medical", and keywords "chaperones", and "urology". Studies were included if they addressed patient/provider perspectives on chaperone utilization in urology specifically and were excluded if they investigated perspectives on chaperone utilization in other specialties. Preliminary study identification yielded 702 studies, 9 of which were eligible for this review after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 4 studies focused on the patient perspective and 5 focused on the provider perspective. The percentage of patients that did not have a chaperone present during their urologic exam ranged from 52.9-88.5%. A greater proportion of these patients were male. Patients (59%) prefer a family member compared to a staff member as a chaperone. Physicians (60%) prefer staff member chaperones compared to family members. One study reported that 25.6% of patients did not feel comfortable to ask for a chaperone if they were not offered one. Two studies reported the percentage of patients who believed chaperones should be offered to all urology patients, ranging from 73-88.4%. Three studies reported the use of chaperones in the clinic which ranged from 5-72.5%. Two studies reported chaperone utilization documentation, ranging between 16-21.3%. Two studies reported the likelihood of chaperone utilization depending on gender of the physician, showing that male physicians were more likely to utilize chaperones and were 3x more likely to offer chaperones to their patients compared to female physicians. Research suggests that there are differing perspectives between patients and physicians regarding the specific role and benefits chaperones offer during a sensitive urologic examination, as well as differences in preferences of who should perform the role of the chaperone. While more work needs to be done to bridge the divide between clinical practice and patient/physician preferences, the act of offering chaperones to urologic patients, regardless if they want to utilize a chaperone for their examination is respectful of patient privacy and decision making.