Non-Traditional Approaches for Quality Control of Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests

  • Janet Hindler
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 349)


Quality control is an essential part of any clinical laboratory procedure and can simply be defined as the series of steps that are taken to make certain test results are accurate and reproducible. Antimicrobial susceptibility tests, like many other microbiology tests are somewhat unique in that they depend on growth (or no growth) of bacteria which is often unpredictable and sensitive to changes in the environment. Therefore, it is essential that technical variables in the test system are well standardized and controlled and that personnel performing the tests thoroughly understand the components of the test system. This must all be considered when developing a program for quality control of antimicrobial susceptibility tests.


Infective Endocarditis Antimicrobial Susceptibility Clinical Laboratory Standard Clinical Microbiology Laboratory Viridans Streptococcus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). 1989. Catalogue of bacteria and bacteriophages. 17th edition. ATCC, Rockville, MD. (301) 881–2600.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.L. Barry and L.E. Braun, Reader error in determining minimal inhibitory concentrations with microdilution susceptibility test panels. J Clin Microbiol. 13:228–230 (1981).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.L. Barry, M.B. Coyle, C. Thornsberry, E.H. Gerlach, and R.W. Hawkinson, Methods of measuring zones of inhibition with the Bauer-Kirby disk susceptibility test. J Clin Microbiol 10:885–889 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.L. Bisno, WE Dismukes, DT Durack, E.L. Kaplan, A.W. Karchmer, D. Kaye, S.H. Rahimtoola, M.A. Sande, J.P. Sanford, C. Watanakunakorn, and W.W. Wilson, Antimicrobial treatment of infective endocarditis due to viridans streptococci, enterococci, and staphylococci. JAMA 261:1471–1477 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    College of American Pathologists (CAP) Proficiency Survey, Bacteriology Survey #D-05. CAP, Skokie, IL. (1991).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Boyce, J.R. Lonks, A.A. Medeiros, E.F. Papa, and S. Campbell, Spurious oxacillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus because of defective oxacillin disks. J Clin Microbiol. 26:1425–1427 (1988).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CDC Guidelines for Isolation Precautions in Hospitals, Nosocomial Infections, Infection Control 4:245–249 (1983).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.L. Gilardi, Identification of glucose-nonfermenting gram-negative rods, Department of Laboratories, North General Hospital, 1919 Madison Avenue, New York, NY. 10035. (1990).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. A. Hindler, Non-traditional approaches to quality control of antimicrobial susceptibility tests, Clin Microbiol Newsletter. 12:65–69 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G.A. Jacoby, and G.L. Archer, New mechanisms of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents. NEJM. 324:601–612 (1990).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G.A. Jacoby and A.A. Mederios, More extended-spectrum B-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 35:1697–1704 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.N. Jones, D.C. Edson, and the CAP Microbiology Resource Committee of the College of American Pathologists, Antimicrobial susceptibility testing trends and accuracy in the United States. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 115:429–436 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medical Letter, The choice of antimicrobial agents, The Medical Letter. 32:41–48 (1990).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B.E. Murray, Antibiotic treatment of enterococcal infection, Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 33:1411(1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    B.E. Murray, New aspects of antimicrobial resistance and the resulting therapeutic dilemmas. J Infect Dis. 163:1185–1194(1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1990, Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests — Fourth edition. Approved Standard; M2–A4. NCCLS, Villanova, PA.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1990, Methods for dilution antimicrobial susceptibility tests for bacteria that grow aerobically — Second edition. Approved Standard: M7–A2. NCCLS, Villanova, PA.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, 1991, Supplemental table for M2–A4, M7–A2, and M11–A2, M100–S3, NCCLS, Villanova, PA.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Philippon, R. Labia, and G. Jacoby, Extended-spectrum B-lactamases. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 33:1131–1136 (1989).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    K.L. Ruoff, Gram-positive vancomycin-resistant clinical isolates. Clin Microbiol Newsletter. 11:1–4(1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Von Graevenitz, Use of antimicrobial agents as tools in epidemiology, identification, and selection of microorganisms, p. 723–738. In V Lorian (ed.), Antibiotics in laboratory medicine, third edition. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore (1991).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J.A. Washington, II., Current problems in antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 9:135–138 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Hindler
    • 1
  1. 1.UCLA Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations