Diversity of Urine Bacteriology Practice in Ontario: An External Quality AssessmentReport as inadecuate




Diversity of Urine Bacteriology Practice in Ontario: An External Quality Assessment - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases - Volume 7 1996, Issue 4, Pages 243-246

Original Article Received 14 December 1995; Accepted 8 March 1996

Copyright © 1996 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of urine bacteriology practice in Ontario regarding appropriateness of quantification and the accuracy and Système International d’Unités SI conformity in the reporting of results.

DESIGN AND SETTING: A simulated urine specimen with Escherichia coli at a target of 100×10 colony forming units CFU-L was submitted to licensed Ontario bacteriology laboratories. Data on the isolation and quantification of the pathogen were required within a stipulated time. Reference values were determined by consensus agreement of the findings of seven designated laboratories.

PARTICIPANTS: The challenge was administered to 182 Ontario laboratories licensed to perform urine bacteriological assessment. There was no stratification by type or complexity of facility.

MAIN OUTCOMES: Samples were processed by routine procedures. Date and time of receipt of the sample, date tested, bacterial count, associated quantification units and the method used were the data required. A copy of the report using the laboratory’s normal reporting format to user-physicians was requested.

RESULTS: The organism was isolated and correctly identified by 179 laboratories. Only 58% of laboratories reported a count of 100×10

CFU-L or more, with 42% reporting a count of between 10 and 100×10

CFU-L. The majority used a standard 0.001 mL loop method. Only 87 participants reported using the correct notation of SI units, although a further 65 reported as CFU-L.

CONCLUSION: The variety of reporting formats is of concern. Processing and reporting should be standardized. Laboratories should provide an explanatory note or interpretation when nomenclature or format of a report is changed.





Author: Harold Richardson, Christine A Fleming, Andrew MR Mackenzie, and The Microbiology Committee

Source: https://www.hindawi.com/



DOWNLOAD PDF




Related documents