Cefazolin is the preferred antimicrobial for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) in many procedures. The presence of penicillin allergies can influence prescribing of alternative agents like vancomycin. In April 2022, Nebraska Medicine implemented a suppression of alerts for non-IgE-mediated and nonsevere penicillin allergies in the electronic medical record (EMR) upon cephalosporin prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in perioperative cefazolin for SSI prophylaxis.

This was a quasi-experimental study of patients undergoing procedures for which cefazolin was the preferred agent per institutional guidance. Education on the change was distributed via e-mail to surgical staff and pharmacists. Pre- and post-intervention data were collected from April 2021 through March 2022 and April 11, 2022, through October 2022, respectively. Chart review was performed on patients with reported penicillin allergies for the top surgical procedures with <50% cefazolin utilization pre-intervention. The primary outcome was the administration of perioperative cefazolin in patients with penicillin allergies, including unknown reactions.

A total of 6,676 patients underwent surgical procedures (pre-intervention n = 4,147, post-intervention n = 2,529). Documented penicillin allergies were similar between the pre- and post-intervention group (12.3% vs. 12.6%). In individuals with documented penicillin allergies, cefazolin prescribing increased from 49.6% to 74.3% (p < 0.01). Chart review for safety outcomes identified no difference in new severe reactions, rescue medication, SSIs, acute kidney injury, postoperative Clostridioides difficile infection, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections.

Following the suppression of EMR alerts for non-IgE-mediated and nonsevere penicillin allergies, cefazolin prescribing rates for SSI prophylaxis significantly improved.

No established guidelines exist regarding the role of oral antibiotic therapy (OAT) to treat bloodstream infections (BSIs), and practices may vary depending on clinician specialty and experience.

To assess practice patterns regarding oral antibiotic use for treatment of bacteremia in infectious diseases clinicians (IDCs, including physicians and pharmacists and trainees in these groups) and non–infectious diseases clinicians (NIDCs).

Open-access survey.

Clinicians caring for hospitalized patients receiving antibiotics.

An open-access, web-based survey was distributed to clinicians at a Midwestern academic medical center using e-mail and to clinicians outside the medical center using social media. Respondents answered questions regarding confidence prescribing OAT for BSI in different scenarios. We used χ2 analysis for categorical data evaluated association between responses and demographic groups.

Of 282 survey responses, 82.6% of respondents were physicians, 17.4% pharmacists, and IDCs represented 69.2% of all respondents. IDCs were more likely to select routine use of OAT for BSI due to gram-negative anaerobes (84.6% vs 59.8%; P < .0001), Klebsiella spp (84.5% vs 69.0%; P < .009), Proteus spp (83.6% vs 71.3%; P < .027), and other Enterobacterales (79.5% vs 60.9%; P < .004). Our survey results revealed significant differences in selected treatment of Staphylococcus aureus syndromes. Fewer IDCs than NIDCs selected OAT to complete treatment for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) BSI due to gluteal abscess (11.9% vs 25.6%; P = .012) and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) BSI due to septic arthritis (13.9% vs 20.9%; P = .219).

Practice variation and discordance with evidence for the use of OAT for BSIs exists among IDCs versus NIDCs, highlighting opportunities for education in both clinician groups.