Samuel Linoj P, Balada-Llasat Joan-Miquel, Harrington Amanda, Cavagnolo Robert
Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
J Clin Microbiol. 2016 Jun;54(6):1442-1447. doi: 10.1128/JCM.03066-15. Epub 2016 Feb 17.
Gram stains remain the cornerstone of diagnostic testing in the microbiology laboratory for the guidance of empirical treatment prior to availability of culture results. Incorrectly interpreted Gram stains may adversely impact patient care, and yet there are no comprehensive studies that have evaluated the reliability of the technique and there are no established standards for performance. In this study, clinical microbiology laboratories at four major tertiary medical care centers evaluated Gram stain error rates across all nonblood specimen types by using standardized criteria. The study focused on several factors that primarily contribute to errors in the process, including poor specimen quality, smear preparation, and interpretation of the smears. The number of specimens during the evaluation period ranged from 976 to 1,864 specimens per site, and there were a total of 6,115 specimens. Gram stain results were discrepant from culture for 5% of all specimens. Fifty-eight percent of discrepant results were specimens with no organisms reported on Gram stain but significant growth on culture, while 42% of discrepant results had reported organisms on Gram stain that were not recovered in culture. Upon review of available slides, 24% (63/263) of discrepant results were due to reader error, which varied significantly based on site (9% to 45%). The Gram stain error rate also varied between sites, ranging from 0.4% to 2.7%. The data demonstrate a significant variability between laboratories in Gram stain performance and affirm the need for ongoing quality assessment by laboratories. Standardized monitoring of Gram stains is an essential quality control tool for laboratories and is necessary for the establishment of a quality benchmark across laboratories.
革兰氏染色仍然是微生物学实验室诊断检测的基石,用于在培养结果出来之前指导经验性治疗。革兰氏染色的错误解读可能会对患者护理产生不利影响,然而,目前尚无全面的研究评估该技术的可靠性,也没有既定的操作标准。在本研究中,四个主要三级医疗中心的临床微生物学实验室使用标准化标准评估了所有非血液标本类型的革兰氏染色错误率。该研究聚焦于几个主要导致该过程中出现错误的因素,包括标本质量差、涂片制备以及涂片解读。评估期间每个站点的标本数量从976到1864个不等,总共6115个标本。所有标本中有5%的革兰氏染色结果与培养结果不一致。58%的不一致结果是革兰氏染色报告无微生物但培养有显著生长的标本,而42%的不一致结果是革兰氏染色报告有微生物但培养未检出的标本。在查看可用玻片后,24%(63/263)的不一致结果是由于阅片者错误,不同站点之间差异显著(9%至45%)。革兰氏染色错误率在不同站点之间也有所不同,范围从0.4%到2.7%。数据表明各实验室在革兰氏染色操作方面存在显著差异,并肯定了实验室持续进行质量评估的必要性。对革兰氏染色进行标准化监测是实验室必不可少的质量控制工具,也是在各实验室之间建立质量基准所必需的。