| Literature DB >> 32656174 |
Cedric P Yansouni1, Daniel Seifu2, Michael Libman1, Tinsae Alemayehu2, Solomon Gizaw3, Øystein Haarklau Johansen4, Workeabeba Abebe2, Wondwossen Amogne2, Makeda Semret1.
Abstract
Background: Access to clinical bacteriology in low resource settings (LRS) is a key bottleneck preventing individual patient management of treatable severe infections, detection of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and implementation of effective stewardship interventions. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of a practical bundle of interventions aimed at implementing sustainable clinical bacteriology services at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and report on cost and intensity of supervision.Entities:
Keywords: Ethiopia; antimicrobial stewardship; bacteriology; diagnostics; laboratory strengthening; non-malarial febrile illness; sepsis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32656174 PMCID: PMC7325602 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Standard operating procedures (SOP) that were developed and implemented as part of the initial laboratory strengthening intervention.
| Antimicrobial susceptibility testing using Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method |
| Blood bacterial culture |
| Cerebrospinal fluid bacterial culture |
| Sterile body fluid bacterial culture |
| Pus—superficial specimens—bacterial culture |
| Pus—deep specimens—bacterial culture |
| Urine bacterial culture |
| Sputum and lower respiratory specimen bacterial culture |
| Vaginal bacterial culture |
| Gram stain |
| Identification of Gram-negative bacilli |
| Identification of Gram-positive cocci |
| Identification of Gram-positive bacilli |
| Recognizing dangerous pathogens at the work bench |
This table does not list SOP dealing with quality control.
These documents are provided in the .
Selected metrics of laboratory utilization and laboratory-supported activities in Dec 2015- Jan 2016, prior to the laboratory strengthening intervention, and 18 months post-intervention. Laboratory utilization increased markedly in the post-implementation period.
| Mean new blood cultures ( | 2 | 45 |
| Mean total new specimens ( | 15 | 75 |
| Cumulative antibiogram for hospital | No | Yes |
| Clinical diagnosis and treatment guidelines based on local susceptibility patterns | No | Yes |
| Antimicrobial stewardship activities | No | Yes |
Figure 1Screenshots of the commercially available subscription-based online resource on which we were able to insert cumulative antibiogram data as well as tailored clinical guidelines on antimicrobial use, informed by local susceptibility patterns (Sanford Guide with Stewardship Assist™; https://www.sanfordguide.com/stewardship-assist/). Accessible to all registered physicians at TASH via their smartphone.
Figure 2Photo illustrating several recurrent challenges in the pre-analytic phase of testing. A few mL of blood (i.e., inadequate volume) in a manual culture bottle (inappropriate collection device) without a requisition or any way to identify the requesting physician. The patient is identified only by name, without a unique identifier. The barcode shown was generated in the laboratory after a time-consuming investigation conclusively identified the patient and a requesting physician.
Key obstacles to the implementation of quality-assured clinical bacteriology laboratories. Many of the most difficult challenges are outside the laboratory and its control.
| Achieving a broad-based commitment to quality | • Sustained engagement with clinicians and hospital administration to promote the relevance of the laboratory. |
| Engaging and generating demand from clinicians | • Series of clinician-focused hospital lectures. |
| Poor-quality specimen Wrong test ordered | • Communication, education, and persistence. |
| Inappropriate transport conditions | • Would be facilitated by the existence of a medically qualified microbiologist in the hospital. |
| Improperly labeled specimens Absent, incomplete, incomprehensible requisitions | • Technologists provided blood culture bottles only after requesting physicians supplied a properly filled requisition. |
| Adapting standard operating procedures (SOP) | • Using best-practices for SOP in LRS ( |
| Standardizing practice | • Regular and repeated direct observations were the single most useful action available for identifying knowledge and procedural gaps, and for promoting reference to SOPs. |
| Availability of pyrolidonyl aminopeptidase (PYR) for identification of | • In the absence of PYR reagent, we relied on bile esculin (BE) hydrolysis to differentiate |
| Availability of rabbit plasma for coagulase testing | • We relied on importation of a commercial kit (Pastorex™ Staph-Plus; Bio-Rad, Marnes-la-Coquette, France) to presumptively identify |
| Availability of Mueller-Hinton blood agar for AST of fastidious bacteria | • Use of chocolate agar was permitted as long as QC testing of antimicrobial discs using representative bacterial strains yielded expected results. |
| Availability of sheep-blood agar | • Hospital administration unwilling to keep two healthy sheep on the hospital grounds for this purpose. |
| Complexity of bacterial identification | • Simplified presumptive bacterial identification schemes, based on manual phenotypic testing, were used instead of routine full identification. |
| Inadequate space | • Few short-term solutions. |
| No telephone system in hospita No way to reach physician for critical results | • Successfully implemented a policy of demanding the mobile phone number of the ordering physician on the test requisition. |
| Inadequate laboratory information system | • Implemented WHONET software ( |
| No in-hospital electronic medical record | • We relied on a written ledger that was consulted on a daily basis by ordering physicians. |
| • We provided all registered physicians with electronic access to a commercially available online resource on which we could load cumulative antibiogram data as well as tailored clinical guidelines on antimicrobial use, informed by local susceptibility patterns (Sanford Guide with Stewardship Assist™; | |
| Data analysis responsibility | • Ongoing data analysis for quality assurance remains a challenge without external support. |
| Power/training differential between technologists and laboratory clients | • The promotion of mutual respect through lectures and open communication was helpful. |
| Overcoming local supply and foreign currency exchange issues | • See text. |
| Engagement from hospital & university community toward importance of lab sector | |
| Attractiveness of microbiology as a career path, given lack of recognized specialty in LRS | |
| Attractiveness of Infectious Diseases as a career given lower revenue compared to procedural specialties. |
SOP denotes standard operating procedures; PYR, pyrolidonyl aminopeptidase; AMR, antimicrobial resistance; AST, antimicrobial susceptibility testing; LRS, low resource settings; QC, quality control; BE, bile esculin.