Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and economic impact of rapid reporting of bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility results of the most frequently processed specimen types

  • Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions are associated with an increase in healthcare costs and a decrease in the quality of care. The aim of this study was to measure the clinical and economic impact of rapid microbiological reporting on the specimens most frequently processed by the Microbiology Laboratory. The Vitek® 2 system (bioMérieux) was used for identification and susceptibility testing. Only hospitalized patients with bacterial infections were included. Two groups were established, a historical control group (results available the day following the analysis) and an intervention group (results available the same day of the analysis). Specimens studied and the median length of time from the introduction of the microorganism in the Vitek® 2 until microbiological report were as follows: wound and abscess (control = 23.5 h, intervention = 9.5 h, p < 0.001), blood (control = 23.5 h, intervention = 9.2 h, p < 0.001), and urine (control = 23.4 h, intervention = 9.3 h, p < 0.001). Outcome parameters were hospital stay and mortality rates. Hospital costs were calculated. The mortality rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. Faster reporting of identification and antimicrobial susceptibility results was associated with a significant reduction in hospital stay and in overall costs for those patients from whom wound, abscess, and urine specimens were analyzed. However, the antimicrobial results of blood culture isolates did not lead to significant clinical or financial benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Bradley JS, Edwards JE, Gilbert D, Rice LB, Scheld M, Spellberg B, Bartlett J (2009) Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 48(1):1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ramos Martínez A, Muñez Rubio E, Santiago Pérez A, García Sanz E, Manso Manrique M, Torralba Arranz A, Asensio Vegas A (2007) Antibiotic treatment optimization by means of antibiotic treatment experts participation. An Med Interna 24(8):375–378

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. López-Medrano F, San Juan R, Serrano O, Chaves F, Lumbreras C, Lizasoaín M, Herreros de Tejada A, Aguado JM (2005) PACTA: efecto de un programa no impositivo de control y asesoramiento del tratamiento antibiótico sobre la disminución de los costes y el descenso de ciertas infecciones nosocomiales. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 23(4):186–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barenfanger J, Drake C, Kacich G (1999) Clinical and financial benefits of rapid bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. J Clin Microbiol 37(5):1415–1418

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Doern GV, Vautour R, Gaudet M, Levy B (1994) Clinical impact of rapid in vitro susceptibility testing and bacterial identification. J Clin Microbiol 32(7):1757–1762

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kerremans JJ, Verboom P, Stijnen T, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Goessens W, Verbrugh HA, Vos MC (2008) Rapid identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing reduce antibiotic use and accelerate pathogen-directed antibiotic use. J Antimicrob Chemother 61(2):428–435

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Trenholme GM, Kaplan RL, Karakusis PH, Stine T, Fuhrer J, Landau W, Levin S (1989) Clinical impact of rapid identification and susceptibility testing of bacterial blood culture isolates. J Clin Microbiol 27(6):1342–1345

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bruins M, Oord H, Bloembergen P, Wolfhagen M, Casparie A, Degener J, Ruijs G (2005) Lack of effect of shorter turnaround time of microbiological procedures on clinical outcomes: a randomised controlled trial among hospitalised patients in the Netherlands. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 24(5):305–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cercenado E, Cantón R (2003) Procedures in clinical microbiology, 2nd edn. Collection, transport and general processing of samples in the Microbiology Laboratory. Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology. Available online at: http://www.seimc.org/documentos/protocolos/microbiologia/

  10. McCabe WR, Jackson GG (1962) Gram-negative bacteremia. I. Etiology and ecology. Arch Intern Med 110:847–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. National Institute of Statistics. Consumer Price Index (CPI). Update general income with the CPI (CPI Base System 2006) for complete annual periods. Home page at: http://www.ine.es/calcula/. Last accessed 2 July 2010

  13. Kuijper EJ, van der Meer J, de Jong MD, Speelman P, Dankert J (2003) Usefulness of Gram stain for diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection or urinary tract infection and as an aid in guiding treatment. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 22(4):228–234

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Munson EL, Diekema DJ, Beekmann SE, Chapin KC, Doern GV (2003) Detection and treatment of bloodstream infection: laboratory reporting and antimicrobial management. J Clin Microbiol 41(1):495–497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cobo J, Oliva J, Sanz J, Aguado JM, Del Pozo JL, Moreno S (2003) Influence of microbiological reports on physician’s choice of antimicrobial treatment for susceptible pathogens. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 22(9):569–572

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu VL, Stoehr GP, Starling RC, Shogan JE (1991) Empiric antibiotic selection by physicians: evaluation of reasoning strategies. Am J Med Sci 301(3):165–172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Beumont M, Schuster MG (1999) Is an observation period necessary after intravenous antibiotics are changed to oral administration? Am J Med 106(1):114–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rhew DC, Hackner D, Henderson L, Ellrodt AG, Weingarten SR (1998) The clinical benefit of in-hospital observation in ‘low-risk’ pneumonia patients after conversion from parenteral to oral antimicrobial therapy. Chest 113(1):142–146

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Byl B, Clevenbergh P, Jacobs F, Struelens MJ, Zech F, Kentos A, Thys JP (1999) Impact of infectious diseases specialists and microbiological data on the appropriateness of antimicrobial therapy for bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 29(1):60–66; discussion 67–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fowler VG Jr, Sanders LL, Sexton DJ, Kong L, Marr KA, Gopal AK, Gottlieb G, McClelland RS, Corey GR (1998) Outcome of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia according to compliance with recommendations of infectious diseases specialists: experience with 244 patients. Clin Infect Dis 27(3):478–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Takakura S, Fujihara N, Saito T, Kimoto T, Ito Y, Iinuma Y, Ichiyama S (2006) Improved clinical outcome of patients with Candida bloodstream infections through direct consultation by infectious diseases physicians in a Japanese university hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 27(9):964–968

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Raúl Morrás for his software application, the staff of the Department of Clinical Microbiology for their contribution to the study, and Dr. Stelling (Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA) for his revision of the English version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by bioMérieux (Marcy l’Etoile, France).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Microbiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

    A. Galar, S. Hernáez-Crespo & J. Leiva

  2. Infectious Diseases Division, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

    J. R. Yuste & M. Espinosa

  3. Preventive Medicine Division, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

    F. Guillén-Grima

  4. Microbiology Laboratory, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    A. Galar

Authors
  1. A. Galar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. R. Yuste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Espinosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Guillén-Grima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Hernáez-Crespo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Leiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Galar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Galar, A., Yuste, J.R., Espinosa, M. et al. Clinical and economic impact of rapid reporting of bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility results of the most frequently processed specimen types. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 31, 2445–2452 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-012-1588-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-012-1588-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation