Cargando…

Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow

Using computerized time-stamps, we compared the turnaround-times (TAT) for urine samples and screening ESwabs of MRSA, VRE, and ESBL carriage in the bacteriology laboratory of Geneva University Hospitals between January and December 2017 (period preceding the implementation of the WASPLab(TM)) with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cherkaoui, Abdessalam, Renzi, Gesuele, Martischang, Romain, Harbarth, Stephan, Vuilleumier, Nicolas, Schrenzel, Jacques
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7664309/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33194794
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.552122
_version_ 1783609818887487488
author Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
Renzi, Gesuele
Martischang, Romain
Harbarth, Stephan
Vuilleumier, Nicolas
Schrenzel, Jacques
author_facet Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
Renzi, Gesuele
Martischang, Romain
Harbarth, Stephan
Vuilleumier, Nicolas
Schrenzel, Jacques
author_sort Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
collection PubMed
description Using computerized time-stamps, we compared the turnaround-times (TAT) for urine samples and screening ESwabs of MRSA, VRE, and ESBL carriage in the bacteriology laboratory of Geneva University Hospitals between January and December 2017 (period preceding the implementation of the WASPLab(TM)) with the same specimen types analyzed between January and December 2019 (period after the implementation of the automation). During both 1-year periods, a total of 98'380 specimens were analyzed (48'158 in 2017 vs. 50'222 in 2019). On the WASPLab(TM), all culture plates were imaged at defined intervals each day of incubation, but the processing of the cultures (i.e., pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing) was only performed during day shift hours (~8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.). The median TAT for negative reports decreased by almost half for urine samples from 52.1 (2017) to 28.3 h (2019) (p < 0.001), and for MRSA screening specimens from 50.7 to 26.3 h (p < 0.001). The difference in median TAT for negative reports was less pronounced for screening of ESBL (50.2 vs. 43.0 h) (p < 0.001) and VRE (50.6 vs. 45.7 h) (p < 0.001). Despite a trend toward shorter result delivery for positive samples, there was no significant change in the median TAT. These results suggest that TAT for negative samples immediately benefit from automation, whereas TAT for positive samples also depend on the laboratory hours of operation and daily human resource management.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7664309
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76643092020-11-13 Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow Cherkaoui, Abdessalam Renzi, Gesuele Martischang, Romain Harbarth, Stephan Vuilleumier, Nicolas Schrenzel, Jacques Front Cell Infect Microbiol Cellular and Infection Microbiology Using computerized time-stamps, we compared the turnaround-times (TAT) for urine samples and screening ESwabs of MRSA, VRE, and ESBL carriage in the bacteriology laboratory of Geneva University Hospitals between January and December 2017 (period preceding the implementation of the WASPLab(TM)) with the same specimen types analyzed between January and December 2019 (period after the implementation of the automation). During both 1-year periods, a total of 98'380 specimens were analyzed (48'158 in 2017 vs. 50'222 in 2019). On the WASPLab(TM), all culture plates were imaged at defined intervals each day of incubation, but the processing of the cultures (i.e., pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing) was only performed during day shift hours (~8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.). The median TAT for negative reports decreased by almost half for urine samples from 52.1 (2017) to 28.3 h (2019) (p < 0.001), and for MRSA screening specimens from 50.7 to 26.3 h (p < 0.001). The difference in median TAT for negative reports was less pronounced for screening of ESBL (50.2 vs. 43.0 h) (p < 0.001) and VRE (50.6 vs. 45.7 h) (p < 0.001). Despite a trend toward shorter result delivery for positive samples, there was no significant change in the median TAT. These results suggest that TAT for negative samples immediately benefit from automation, whereas TAT for positive samples also depend on the laboratory hours of operation and daily human resource management. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7664309/ /pubmed/33194794 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.552122 Text en Copyright © 2020 Cherkaoui, Renzi, Martischang, Harbarth, Vuilleumier and Schrenzel. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cellular and Infection Microbiology
Cherkaoui, Abdessalam
Renzi, Gesuele
Martischang, Romain
Harbarth, Stephan
Vuilleumier, Nicolas
Schrenzel, Jacques
Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow
title Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow
title_full Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow
title_fullStr Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow
title_full_unstemmed Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow
title_short Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow
title_sort impact of total laboratory automation on turnaround times for urine cultures and screening specimens for mrsa, esbl, and vre carriage: retrospective comparison with manual workflow
topic Cellular and Infection Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7664309/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33194794
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.552122
work_keys_str_mv AT cherkaouiabdessalam impactoftotallaboratoryautomationonturnaroundtimesforurineculturesandscreeningspecimensformrsaesblandvrecarriageretrospectivecomparisonwithmanualworkflow
AT renzigesuele impactoftotallaboratoryautomationonturnaroundtimesforurineculturesandscreeningspecimensformrsaesblandvrecarriageretrospectivecomparisonwithmanualworkflow
AT martischangromain impactoftotallaboratoryautomationonturnaroundtimesforurineculturesandscreeningspecimensformrsaesblandvrecarriageretrospectivecomparisonwithmanualworkflow
AT harbarthstephan impactoftotallaboratoryautomationonturnaroundtimesforurineculturesandscreeningspecimensformrsaesblandvrecarriageretrospectivecomparisonwithmanualworkflow
AT vuilleumiernicolas impactoftotallaboratoryautomationonturnaroundtimesforurineculturesandscreeningspecimensformrsaesblandvrecarriageretrospectivecomparisonwithmanualworkflow
AT schrenzeljacques impactoftotallaboratoryautomationonturnaroundtimesforurineculturesandscreeningspecimensformrsaesblandvrecarriageretrospectivecomparisonwithmanualworkflow