Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of an intervention to improve blood culture practices: a cluster randomised trial

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

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate an intervention to improve blood culture practices. A cluster randomised trial in two parallel groups was performed at the Grenoble University Hospital, France. In October 2009, the results of a practices audit and the guidelines for the optimal use of blood cultures were disseminated to clinical departments. We compared two types of information dissemination: simple presentation or presentation associated with an infectious diseases (ID) specialist intervention. The principal endpoint was blood culture performance measured by the rate of patients having one positive blood culture and the rate of positive blood cultures. The cases of 130 patients in the “ID” group and 119 patients in the “simple presentation” group were audited during the second audit in April 2010. The rate of patients with one positive blood culture increased in both groups (13.62 % vs 9.89 % for the ID group, p = 0.002, 15.90 % vs 13.47 % for the simple presentation group, p = 0.009). The rate of positive blood cultures improved in both groups (6.68 % vs 5.96 % for the ID group, p = 0.003, 6.52 % vs 6.21 % for the simple presentation group, p = 0.017). The blood culture indication was significantly less often specified in the request form in the simple presentation group, while it remained stable in the ID group (p = 0.04). The rate of positive blood cultures and the rate of patients having one positive blood culture improved in both groups. The ID specialist intervention did not have more of an impact on practices than a simple presentation of audit feedback and guidelines.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ellepola AN, Morrison CJ (2005) Laboratory diagnosis of invasive candidiasis. J Microbiol 43:65–84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nakamura T, Takahashi O, Matsui K et al (2006) Clinical prediction rules for bacteremia and in-hospital death based on clinical data at the time of blood withdrawal for culture: an evaluation of their development and use. J Eval Clin Pract 12:692–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Herchline T, Gros S (1998) Improving clinical outcome in bacteremia. J Eval Clin Pract 4:191–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peters RP, van Agtmael MA, Danner SA, Savelkoul PH, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM (2004) New developments in the diagnosis of bloodstream infections. Lancet Infect Dis 4:751–760

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coburn B, Morris AM, Tomlinson G, Detsky AS (2012) Does this adult patient with suspected bacteremia require blood cultures? JAMA 308:502–511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mylotte JM, Tayara A (2000) Blood cultures: clinical aspects and controversies. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 19:157–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bates DW, Sands K, Miller E et al (1997) Predicting bacteremia in patients with sepsis syndrome. Academic Medical Center Consortium Sepsis Project Working Group. J Infect Dis 176:1538–1551

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jaimes F, Arango C, Ruiz G et al (2004) Predicting bacteremia at the bedside. Clin Infect Dis 38:357–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grohs P, Mainardi JL, Podglajen I et al (2007) Relevance of routine use of the anaerobic blood culture bottle. J Clin Microbiol 45:2711–2715

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bouza E, Sousa D, Rodriguez-Creixems M, Lechuz JG, Munoz P (2007) Is the volume of blood cultured still a significant factor in the diagnosis of bloodstream infections? J Clin Microbiol 45:2765–2769

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee A, Mirrett S, Reller LB, Weinstein MP (2007) Detection of bloodstream infections in adults: how many blood cultures are needed? J Clin Microbiol 45:3546–3548

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Nicola FG (2008) Assessing how many blood cultures are needed for detecting bloodstream infections. J Clin Microbiol 46:1155–1156

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Patton RG, Schmitt T (2010) Innovation for reducing blood culture contamination: initial specimen diversion technique. J Clin Microbiol 48:4501–4503

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Shapiro NI, Wolfe RE, Wright SB, Moore R, Bates DW (2008) Who needs a blood culture? A prospectively derived and validated prediction rule. J Emerg Med 35:255–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vitrat-Hincky V, Francois P, Labarere J, Recule C, Stahl JP, Pavese P (2011) Appropriateness of blood culture testing parameters in routine practice. Results from a cross-sectional study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 30:533–539

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sellier E, Pavese P, Gennai S, Stahl JP, Labarere J, Francois P (2010) Factors and outcomes associated with physicians' adherence to recommendations of infectious disease consultations for inpatients. J Antimicrob Chemother 65:156–162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pavese P, Sellier E, Laborde L, Gennai S, Stahl JP, Francois P (2011) Requesting physicians' experiences regarding infectious disease consultations. BMC Infect Dis 11:62

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG (2004) CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 328(7441):702–708

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Chandrasekar PH, Brown WJ (1994) Clinical issues of blood cultures. Arch Intern Med 154:841–849

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shafazand S, Weinacker AB (2002) Blood cultures in the critical care unit: improving utilization and yield. Chest 122:1727–1736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mermel LA, Maki DG (1993) Detection of bacteremia in adults: consequences of culturing an inadequate volume of blood. Ann Intern Med 119:270–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weinstein MP, Mirrett S, Wilson ML, Reimer LG, Reller LB (1994) Controlled evaluation of 5 versus 10 milliliters of blood cultures in aerobic BacT/Alert blood cultures bottles. J Clin Microbiol 32:2103–2106

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Donnino MW, Goyal N, Terlecki TM et al (2007) Inadequate blood volume collected for culture: a survey of health care professionals. Mayo Clin Proc 82(9):1069–1072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shanthachol T, Nilgate S, Suankratay C (2012) A comparative study to determine the recovery rate of microorganisms of bloodstream infections: two versus three blood culture specimens. J Med Assoc Thail 95(8):1053–1058

    Google Scholar 

  25. Iwata K, Takahashi M (2008) Is anaerobic blood culture necessary? If so, who needs it? Am J Med Sci 336(1):58–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Plebani M (2010) The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 47(Pt 2):101–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lippi G, Becan-McBride K, Behulova D et al (2013) Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust. Clin Chem Lab Med 51(1):229–241

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Plebani M, Lippi G (2010) Improving the post-analytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med 48(4):435–436

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Green SF (2013) The cost of poor blood specimen quality and errors in preanalytical processes. Clin Biochem 46(13–14):1175–1179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lillo R, Salinas M, Lopez-Garrigos M et al (2012) Reducing preanalytical laboratory sample errors through educational and technological interventions. Clin Lab 58(9–10):911–917

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Willems E, Smismans A, Cartuyvels R et al (2012) The preanalytical optimization of blood cultures: a review and the clinical importance of benchmarking in 5 Belgian hospitals. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 73(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G et al (2004) Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 8(6):iii–iv,1–72.

  33. Davey P, Brown E, Fenelon L et al (2005) Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices for hospital inpatients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD003543

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mean M, Pavese P, Vittoz JP et al (2006) Prospective assessment of fluoroquinolone use in a teaching hospital. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 25(12):757–763

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD (2006) Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care 15(6):433–436

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Financial support

This work was funded by the Direction of Clinical Research of the Grenoble University Hospital (IRB 2010–08).

We acknowledge Linda Northrup for her assistance in editing the manuscript in English and Jean-François Rey for extraction of microbiological data.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Infectious Diseases Department, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France

    P. Pavese & M. Maillet

  2. Infectious Diseases Department, Annecy Hospital, CHU de Grenoble, BP 218, 38043, Grenoble Cedex 9, France

    V. Vitrat-Hincky

  3. Microbiology Department, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France

    C. Recule

  4. Public Health Department, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France

    J.-P. Vittoz, A. Guyomard, A. Seigneurin & P. François

  5. TIMC-IMAG Laboratory, Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France

    A. Seigneurin & P. François

Authors
  1. P. Pavese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Maillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Vitrat-Hincky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Recule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J.-P. Vittoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Guyomard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Seigneurin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. François
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Pavese.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pavese, P., Maillet, M., Vitrat-Hincky, V. et al. Evaluation of an intervention to improve blood culture practices: a cluster randomised trial. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 33, 2207–2213 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-014-2154-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-014-2154-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation