OBJECTIVES: Environmental contamination with DNA from Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) has previously been found in Genitourinary Medicine (GUM) clinics. There are no known cases of cross-contamination of clinical samples and no known nosocomial infections. We investigated whether diagnostic samples could become contaminated from the environment by running dummy sample and carrying out a patient-throughput analysis. A total of 29 748 patients attended clinics over a year. Of these, 2860 (9.6%) had a positive Chlamydia test result. METHOD: (1) A run of dummy samples (60 urine samples and 10 swabs) were processed as normal clinic specimens. (2) Patient-throughput analysis: Patient numbers attending the GUM clinic on a given day was categorised as low, moderate or high. χ(2) Tests were used to look for associations between categorical variables and Chlamydia test positivity. A Poisson regression model was fitted to look at the effect of the number of people in the clinic on the number of positive results in a given day. As some clinics were only run on certain days of the week, a sensitivity analysis was later performed with attendances at non-daily clinics removed. RESULTS: All dummy samples tested negative and we did not find evidence of an association between daily Chlamydia positivity and clinic attendance. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that environmental or cross-contamination of CT has lead to significant numbers of false positive results. Laboratories check for possible cross-contamination routinely. The extension of this simple routine practice to all clinical areas could provide quality assurance, improving confidence in the results in clinics.
OBJECTIVES: Environmental contamination with DNA from Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) has previously been found in Genitourinary Medicine (GUM) clinics. There are no known cases of cross-contamination of clinical samples and no known nosocomial infections. We investigated whether diagnostic samples could become contaminated from the environment by running dummy sample and carrying out a patient-throughput analysis. A total of 29 748 patients attended clinics over a year. Of these, 2860 (9.6%) had a positive Chlamydia test result. METHOD: (1) A run of dummy samples (60 urine samples and 10 swabs) were processed as normal clinic specimens. (2) Patient-throughput analysis: Patient numbers attending the GUM clinic on a given day was categorised as low, moderate or high. χ(2) Tests were used to look for associations between categorical variables and Chlamydia test positivity. A Poisson regression model was fitted to look at the effect of the number of people in the clinic on the number of positive results in a given day. As some clinics were only run on certain days of the week, a sensitivity analysis was later performed with attendances at non-daily clinics removed. RESULTS: All dummy samples tested negative and we did not find evidence of an association between daily Chlamydia positivity and clinic attendance. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that environmental or cross-contamination of CT has lead to significant numbers of false positive results. Laboratories check for possible cross-contamination routinely. The extension of this simple routine practice to all clinical areas could provide quality assurance, improving confidence in the results in clinics.
Authors: Patiyan Andersson; Steven Y C Tong; Rachael A Lilliebridge; Nicole C Brenner; Louise M Martin; Emma Spencer; Jennifer Delima; Gurmeet Singh; Frances McCann; Carolyn Hudson; Tracy Johns; Philip M Giffard Journal: J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Philip M Giffard; Rachael A Lilliebridge; Judith Wilson; Gerald Murray; Samuel Phillips; Sepehr N Tabrizi; Suzanne M Garland; Louise Martin; Gurmeet Singh; Steven Y C Tong; Deborah C Holt; Patiyan Andersson Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers; Julius Schachter; Genevieve A F S van Liere; Petra F G Wolffs; Christian J P A Hoebe Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 3.090