Solitary blood cultures as a quality assurance indicator.

Ronald B Schifman, C. L. Strand, E. Braun, A. Louis-Charles, R. P. Spark, M. L. Fried

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

For patients with suspected bacteremia, at least two separate blood cultures are recommended to achieve maximum sensitivity and to properly interpret results. Since a single blood collection may signify an improper procedure with serious consequences if the diagnosis of blood stream infection is missed, we investigated this problem with studies at three teaching hospitals (A, B, and C) and by a survey of 38 other hospitals. The incidence of solitary blood cultures ranged from 1 to 99% (median 26%) at the surveyed institutions. Among the cases investigated at hospitals B and C, between 10 and 30% of solitary blood cultures were not clinically indicated, while most of the others were caused by the physician not knowing that one culture was insufficient or by failure to complete the diagnostic plan. Focused concurrent intervention at hospital B was associated with reductions in solitary blood cultures from 40.0 to 24.6% (p = 0.045) and a decline in those not indicated from 38.1 to 12.5% (p = 0.192). Global educational efforts at hospital A were associated with a decrease in solitary blood culture rates from 52 to 37% (p = 0.016). These results show that blood culture practice varies widely among institutions in spite of consensus recommendations for proper specimen collections. We estimate that, nationwide, up to 18,000 etiologic diagnoses of bacteremia are missed annually because of this problem. Monitoring institutional solitary blood cultures is recommended as a test utilization indicator and as the basis for improving blood culture practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)132-137
Number of pages6
JournalQuality assurance and utilization review : official journal of the American College of Utilization Review Physicians
Volume6
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1991
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Bacteremia
Specimen Handling
Blood Culture
Teaching Hospitals
Physicians
Incidence
Infection
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Solitary blood cultures as a quality assurance indicator. / Schifman, Ronald B; Strand, C. L.; Braun, E.; Louis-Charles, A.; Spark, R. P.; Fried, M. L.

In: Quality assurance and utilization review : official journal of the American College of Utilization Review Physicians, Vol. 6, No. 4, 12.1991, p. 132-137.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3812bdaaafb2425fbb940edcdfdaddae,
title = "Solitary blood cultures as a quality assurance indicator.",
abstract = "For patients with suspected bacteremia, at least two separate blood cultures are recommended to achieve maximum sensitivity and to properly interpret results. Since a single blood collection may signify an improper procedure with serious consequences if the diagnosis of blood stream infection is missed, we investigated this problem with studies at three teaching hospitals (A, B, and C) and by a survey of 38 other hospitals. The incidence of solitary blood cultures ranged from 1 to 99{\%} (median 26{\%}) at the surveyed institutions. Among the cases investigated at hospitals B and C, between 10 and 30{\%} of solitary blood cultures were not clinically indicated, while most of the others were caused by the physician not knowing that one culture was insufficient or by failure to complete the diagnostic plan. Focused concurrent intervention at hospital B was associated with reductions in solitary blood cultures from 40.0 to 24.6{\%} (p = 0.045) and a decline in those not indicated from 38.1 to 12.5{\%} (p = 0.192). Global educational efforts at hospital A were associated with a decrease in solitary blood culture rates from 52 to 37{\%} (p = 0.016). These results show that blood culture practice varies widely among institutions in spite of consensus recommendations for proper specimen collections. We estimate that, nationwide, up to 18,000 etiologic diagnoses of bacteremia are missed annually because of this problem. Monitoring institutional solitary blood cultures is recommended as a test utilization indicator and as the basis for improving blood culture practice.",
author = "Schifman, {Ronald B} and Strand, {C. L.} and E. Braun and A. Louis-Charles and Spark, {R. P.} and Fried, {M. L.}",
year = "1991",
month = "12",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "132--137",
journal = "American Journal of Medical Quality",
issn = "1062-8606",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Solitary blood cultures as a quality assurance indicator.

AU - Schifman, Ronald B

AU - Strand, C. L.

AU - Braun, E.

AU - Louis-Charles, A.

AU - Spark, R. P.

AU - Fried, M. L.

PY - 1991/12

Y1 - 1991/12

N2 - For patients with suspected bacteremia, at least two separate blood cultures are recommended to achieve maximum sensitivity and to properly interpret results. Since a single blood collection may signify an improper procedure with serious consequences if the diagnosis of blood stream infection is missed, we investigated this problem with studies at three teaching hospitals (A, B, and C) and by a survey of 38 other hospitals. The incidence of solitary blood cultures ranged from 1 to 99% (median 26%) at the surveyed institutions. Among the cases investigated at hospitals B and C, between 10 and 30% of solitary blood cultures were not clinically indicated, while most of the others were caused by the physician not knowing that one culture was insufficient or by failure to complete the diagnostic plan. Focused concurrent intervention at hospital B was associated with reductions in solitary blood cultures from 40.0 to 24.6% (p = 0.045) and a decline in those not indicated from 38.1 to 12.5% (p = 0.192). Global educational efforts at hospital A were associated with a decrease in solitary blood culture rates from 52 to 37% (p = 0.016). These results show that blood culture practice varies widely among institutions in spite of consensus recommendations for proper specimen collections. We estimate that, nationwide, up to 18,000 etiologic diagnoses of bacteremia are missed annually because of this problem. Monitoring institutional solitary blood cultures is recommended as a test utilization indicator and as the basis for improving blood culture practice.

AB - For patients with suspected bacteremia, at least two separate blood cultures are recommended to achieve maximum sensitivity and to properly interpret results. Since a single blood collection may signify an improper procedure with serious consequences if the diagnosis of blood stream infection is missed, we investigated this problem with studies at three teaching hospitals (A, B, and C) and by a survey of 38 other hospitals. The incidence of solitary blood cultures ranged from 1 to 99% (median 26%) at the surveyed institutions. Among the cases investigated at hospitals B and C, between 10 and 30% of solitary blood cultures were not clinically indicated, while most of the others were caused by the physician not knowing that one culture was insufficient or by failure to complete the diagnostic plan. Focused concurrent intervention at hospital B was associated with reductions in solitary blood cultures from 40.0 to 24.6% (p = 0.045) and a decline in those not indicated from 38.1 to 12.5% (p = 0.192). Global educational efforts at hospital A were associated with a decrease in solitary blood culture rates from 52 to 37% (p = 0.016). These results show that blood culture practice varies widely among institutions in spite of consensus recommendations for proper specimen collections. We estimate that, nationwide, up to 18,000 etiologic diagnoses of bacteremia are missed annually because of this problem. Monitoring institutional solitary blood cultures is recommended as a test utilization indicator and as the basis for improving blood culture practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026294203&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026294203&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 132

EP - 137

JO - American Journal of Medical Quality

JF - American Journal of Medical Quality

SN - 1062-8606

IS - 4

ER -