首页> 外文OA文献 >The appropriateness of clinical microbiology laboratory investigations : a retrospective study of the cost and clinical relevance of specimen management and processing
【2h】

The appropriateness of clinical microbiology laboratory investigations : a retrospective study of the cost and clinical relevance of specimen management and processing

机译:临床微生物学实验室调查的适当性:对样本管理和处理的成本和临床相关性的回顾性研究

摘要

Each year, NHS clinical laboratories carry out more than 700 million laboratory tests, of which 50 million are microbiology investigations. Several studies have shown that between 25% and 40% of all tests sent to the laboratory are unnecessary, and up to 46% of ordered microbiology tests are inappropriate. In light of these accounts, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the process of microbiology specimen management in order to assess microbiology test utilisation and the appropriateness of the test ordering processes. The study focussed on respiratory tract specimens using sputum microbiology as a model for the microbiology service inappropriate test utilisation. The overall main aim of this study was to determine the appropriateness of clinical microbiology test utilisation, its clinical relevance and cost-effectiveness, hence recommend better utilisation strategies. A total of 15,941 respiratory tract samples from Barts and The London NHS Trust were randomly selected from the years 2004/05 and analysed retrospectively. Seven hundred microbiology laboratory request forms from patients for whom respiratory tract cultures were requested over a three month period were examined in detail. These requests were derived from 511 sputum specimens, 100 throat swabs, 63 ear swabs and 76 samples from other respiratory tract sites. 641 (91%) of microbiology test requisition forms were completed, provided all requested details by the service users and were therefore considered as appropriate microbiology test requisitions. 660 (94%) of those examined stated the patient’s clinical diagnosis and only in 65 (13%) of these patients was the stated diagnosis as respiratory tract infection. Sixty percent of sputum specimens examined were considered as poor quality. Forty percent of respiratory specimens were reported as culture positive, based on the local hospital criteria of microbiology test reporting. In sputum culture, 39% was reported as culture positive; however, less than 18% were positive with recognised respiratory pathogens, whilst 27% of throat swabs were reported as culture positive, of which 67% had throat pathogens. From the beginning of this study and before, there were no microbiology test comments and interpretation of test results provided with the test result reporting. The test turnaround time of respiratory microbiology results reported within three days in 2004/2005 was only 20%. The total inappropriate respiratory specimens processed locally were 9,575. Extrapolating from our results, this suggests that 2,153,977 nationally were inappropriate in NHS hospitals in 2004/2005. The total cost of inappropriate respiratory microbiology test use was approximately £152,000 in local NHS hospitals. Extrapolating from our results, this suggests that £23,900, 000 nationally was the total cost of inappropriate tests in the NHS hospitals. Following implementation of this study, follow up studies in 2006 and onwards indicated that there has been an improvement in the quality of the microbiology service. The number of good quality sputum specimens was 69% compared to 40% in 2004/2005. While the total microbiology test turnaround time that was reported within three days in 2009/2010 was more than 94%. From mid 2006 onwards, test interpretation comments have been used in all microbiology test result reporting. The total workload of respiratory tract microbiology activity decreased from 18,915/year to 16,651/year over the years 2004/2005 to 2007/2008, which is down nearly 8%. Analysis of the findings showed that the usefulness of culture results was limited by the collection of inappropriate specimens, and lack of clinical information on the microbiology request form. The crucial importance of the role of clinical and nursing staff is stressed if the clinical relevance of sputum culture is to be maximised. The increasing introduction of electronic pathology test requests gives new opportunities to restrict the collection of inappropriate specimens and make substantial savings in resources, both in the ward and the laboratory. This type of study and audit can give invaluable information about the rationale behind testing, and the appropriateness of sampling and transport time. Appropriate measures for corrective actions can be identified.
机译:每年,NHS临床实验室都会进行超过7亿次实验室检测,其中5000万是微生物学调查。几项研究表明,送往实验室的所有测试中有25%至40%是不必要的,而多达46%的有序微生物学测试是不合适的。鉴于这些原因,本研究旨在评估微生物标本管理过程,以评估微生物测试的利用率和测试订购过程的适当性。该研究集中于使用痰微生物学作为呼吸生物学标本的微生物学服务不当测试利用模型。这项研究的总体主要目的是确定临床微生物学测试利用的适当性,其临床相关性和成本效益,因此建议更好的利用策略。 2004/05年从Barts和The London NHS Trust总共抽取了15941个呼吸道样本,并进行了回顾性分析。详细检查了三个月期间要求呼吸道培养的患者的700份微生物学实验室要求表。这些要求来自511个痰标本,100个咽拭子,63个耳拭子和其他呼吸道部位的76个样本。填写了641个(91%)微生物学测试申请表,提供了服务用户所要求的所有详细信息,因此被视为适当的微生物学测试申请书。在接受检查的患者中,有660名(94%)表示该患者为临床诊断,其中只有65名(13%)的患者为呼吸道感染。检查的痰标本中有60%被认为质量较差。根据当地医院微生物学测试报告的标准,有40%的呼吸道标本被报告为培养阳性。在痰培养中,有39%被报告为培养阳性。然而,只有不到18%的人类呼吸道病原体为阳性,而据报道27%的咽拭子为培养阳性,其中67%的人为咽部病原体。从研究开始到之前,在测试结果报告中均未提供微生物学测试注释和测试结果解释。 2004/2005年三天内报告的呼吸微生物学结果的测试周转时间仅为20%。本地处理的不适当呼吸道标本总数为9,575。从我们的结果推论,这表明2004/2005年全国2,153,977人在NHS医院中不合适。在当地的NHS医院中,不适当使用呼吸微生物测试的总费用约为152,000英镑。从我们的结果推论,这表明在全国范围内,NHS医院进行不适当检查的总费用为23,900,000英镑。在实施了这项研究之后,2006年及以后的后续研究表明,微生物服务的质量已有所提高。高质量的痰标本数量为69%,而2004/2005年为40%。虽然2009/2010年三天内报告的微生物学测试总周转时间超过94%。从2006年中开始,所有微生物测试结果报告均使用了测试解释注释。从2004/2005到2007/2008,呼吸道微生物活动的总工作量从18,915 /年减少到16,651 /年,下降了近8%。对结果的分析表明,培养结果的有用性受到不适当标本的收集以及微生物学要求表上缺乏临床信息的限制。如果要最大限度地提高痰培养的临床意义,那么就必须强调临床和护理人员的作用至关重要。电子病理学检查要求的不断引入为限制病房和实验室中不适当标本的收集并节省大量资源提供了新的机会。这种类型的研究和审核可以提供有关测试依据,采样和运输时间是否适当的宝贵信息。可以确定采取纠正措施的适当措施。

著录项

  • 作者

    Abdi Yasin;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2012
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 English
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号