Cargando…

Wound swab quality grading is dependent on Gram smear screening approach

Superficial skin swab collections are inherently low-quality and may be of little clinical value due to their poor sensitivity and specificity. Clinical microbiology laboratories can use Gram smears to screen and differentiate higher and lower quality specimens to direct the extent of potential path...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clark, Shawn T., Forbes, Jessica D., Matukas, Larissa M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9950449/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36823255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29832-1
_version_ 1784893166361509888
author Clark, Shawn T.
Forbes, Jessica D.
Matukas, Larissa M.
author_facet Clark, Shawn T.
Forbes, Jessica D.
Matukas, Larissa M.
author_sort Clark, Shawn T.
collection PubMed
description Superficial skin swab collections are inherently low-quality and may be of little clinical value due to their poor sensitivity and specificity. Clinical microbiology laboratories can use Gram smears to screen and differentiate higher and lower quality specimens to direct the extent of potential pathogen work up, including antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). We compared the impact of two different smear grading approaches to our current reporting practices for superficial wound swab cultures. Two variations of the Q score methodology (low power under 10X (QS10) and high power under 100X (QS100) were compared to our existing oil immersion method (OM100) (100X). We further evaluated the QS100 method by scoring superficial swab smears previously screened by OM100 from cultures submitted between November 2018 and December 2019. No significant difference in the number of low-quality specimens (N = 50) was identified by QS10 or QS100 grading (N = 9; 18%; N = 8; 16% respectively). Among 968 additional QS100 screened smears, 67 (6.9%) low quality swabs were identified and 7.4% fewer organisms (76/1020 organisms) would require reporting with AST. Implementing the Q score for superficial wound swab cultures would provide minimal improvements in their clinical relevance, laboratory quality and efficiency in our laboratory due to the low number of poor-quality swabs received.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9950449
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99504492023-02-25 Wound swab quality grading is dependent on Gram smear screening approach Clark, Shawn T. Forbes, Jessica D. Matukas, Larissa M. Sci Rep Article Superficial skin swab collections are inherently low-quality and may be of little clinical value due to their poor sensitivity and specificity. Clinical microbiology laboratories can use Gram smears to screen and differentiate higher and lower quality specimens to direct the extent of potential pathogen work up, including antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). We compared the impact of two different smear grading approaches to our current reporting practices for superficial wound swab cultures. Two variations of the Q score methodology (low power under 10X (QS10) and high power under 100X (QS100) were compared to our existing oil immersion method (OM100) (100X). We further evaluated the QS100 method by scoring superficial swab smears previously screened by OM100 from cultures submitted between November 2018 and December 2019. No significant difference in the number of low-quality specimens (N = 50) was identified by QS10 or QS100 grading (N = 9; 18%; N = 8; 16% respectively). Among 968 additional QS100 screened smears, 67 (6.9%) low quality swabs were identified and 7.4% fewer organisms (76/1020 organisms) would require reporting with AST. Implementing the Q score for superficial wound swab cultures would provide minimal improvements in their clinical relevance, laboratory quality and efficiency in our laboratory due to the low number of poor-quality swabs received. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9950449/ /pubmed/36823255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29832-1 Text en © Crown 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Clark, Shawn T.
Forbes, Jessica D.
Matukas, Larissa M.
Wound swab quality grading is dependent on Gram smear screening approach
title Wound swab quality grading is dependent on Gram smear screening approach
title_full Wound swab quality grading is dependent on Gram smear screening approach
title_fullStr Wound swab quality grading is dependent on Gram smear screening approach
title_full_unstemmed Wound swab quality grading is dependent on Gram smear screening approach
title_short Wound swab quality grading is dependent on Gram smear screening approach
title_sort wound swab quality grading is dependent on gram smear screening approach
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9950449/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36823255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29832-1
work_keys_str_mv AT clarkshawnt woundswabqualitygradingisdependentongramsmearscreeningapproach
AT forbesjessicad woundswabqualitygradingisdependentongramsmearscreeningapproach
AT matukaslarissam woundswabqualitygradingisdependentongramsmearscreeningapproach