Reeti Khare1,2, Tarush Kothari2,3, Joseph Castagnaro3, Bryan Hemmings2,3, May Tso3, Stefan Juretschko1,2. 1. Infectious Disease Diagnostics, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Northwell Health Laboratories, Little Neck. 2. Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead. 3. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Northwell Health Laboratories, Lake Success, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sensitivity of blood cultures increases with the volume of blood collected. However, hospitals face challenges in collecting adequate volume, and underfilled blood bottles are ubiquitous. METHODS: Blood bottle fill volumes were measured using an automated monitoring system across multiples sites (10 hospitals, 3 laboratories) within a large suburban/urban health system. Baseline fill volumes were measured for 4 months. A quality improvement program was then implemented over 36 months. Strategies to improve fill volumes included education, standardized data collection, novel and unblinded information cascades, targeted communication, and bottle markings for blood collectors. RESULTS: A total of 516 201 blood cultures were evaluated over 40 months. In the preimplementation period (January-April 2015), no hospitals collected the recommended 8-10 mL/bottle, and the average system fill volume was 2.3 mL. In the final postimplementation period (January-April 2018), 7 of 10 hospitals achieved ≥8 mL per bottle and the system average increased to 8.6 mL (P < .0001). The positivity rate increased 20%, from 7.39% to 8.85% (P < .001), whereas the contamination rate did not change and remained low. Compared to the preimplementation period, the odds of positive cultures containing potential pathogens increased to 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.32; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Here we show that underfilled blood cultures are extremely common but that operational and educational strategies can result in sustained improvements across a complex network of hospitals and laboratories. This leads to increased detection of pathogens, which can have tremendous impact on the management of bloodstream infections and sepsis.
BACKGROUND: The sensitivity of blood cultures increases with the volume of blood collected. However, hospitals face challenges in collecting adequate volume, and underfilled blood bottles are ubiquitous. METHODS: Blood bottle fill volumes were measured using an automated monitoring system across multiples sites (10 hospitals, 3 laboratories) within a large suburban/urban health system. Baseline fill volumes were measured for 4 months. A quality improvement program was then implemented over 36 months. Strategies to improve fill volumes included education, standardized data collection, novel and unblinded information cascades, targeted communication, and bottle markings for blood collectors. RESULTS: A total of 516 201 blood cultures were evaluated over 40 months. In the preimplementation period (January-April 2015), no hospitals collected the recommended 8-10 mL/bottle, and the average system fill volume was 2.3 mL. In the final postimplementation period (January-April 2018), 7 of 10 hospitals achieved ≥8 mL per bottle and the system average increased to 8.6 mL (P < .0001). The positivity rate increased 20%, from 7.39% to 8.85% (P < .001), whereas the contamination rate did not change and remained low. Compared to the preimplementation period, the odds of positive cultures containing potential pathogens increased to 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.32; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Here we show that underfilled blood cultures are extremely common but that operational and educational strategies can result in sustained improvements across a complex network of hospitals and laboratories. This leads to increased detection of pathogens, which can have tremendous impact on the management of bloodstream infections and sepsis.
Authors: Valeria Fabre; Eili Klein; Alejandra B Salinas; George Jones; Karen C Carroll; Aaron M Milstone; Joe Amoah; Yea-Jen Hsu; Avinash Gadala; Sanjay Desai; Amit Goyal; David Furfaro; Jacquelyn Zimmerman; Susan Lin; Sara E Cosgrove Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Katrin Steiner; Joanna Baron-Stefaniak; Alexander M Hirschl; Wolfgang Barousch; Birgit Willinger; David M Baron Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 2.655