RCPAQAP audit of antimicrobial reporting in Australian and New Zealand laboratories: opportunities for laboratory contribution to antimicrobial stewardship.

Objectives: A 2017 laboratory survey conducted by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP) asked participants which antimicrobials they would report for given organisms in either blood or urine cultures in order to identify opportunities for improvement of antimicrobial reporting. Methods: Over-reporting was defined as reporting of broad-spectrum antimicrobials on isolates susceptible to narrow-spectrum antimicrobials. Inappropriate reporting was defined as reporting antimicrobials not appropriate for the site of infection. Results: For a fully susceptible Escherichia coli in blood culture, 65% of laboratories (55/84) over-reported at least one antimicrobial. Importantly, 15% (10/65) of laboratories that tested meropenem reported the result. A significant proportion of laboratories (12%, 10/84) reported antimicrobials generally considered inappropriate for treatment of bacteraemia on blood culture isolates. Overall, 82% (77/94) of laboratories either over-reported or inappropriately reported at least one antimicrobial. Conclusions: This survey identifies significant opportunities for improvement and standardization of 'cascade' or 'selective' reporting of antimicrobials and highlights ways in which microbiology laboratories can contribute to antimicrobial stewardship and judicious use of antimicrobials.

Blood culture quality assurance: findings from a RCPAQAP Key Incident Monitoring and Management Systems (KIMMS) audit of blood culture performance.

Blood cultures (BC) are the gold standard investigation for bloodstream infection. Standards exist for BC quality assurance, but key quality indicators are seldom measured. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs (RCPAQAP) Key Incident Monitoring and Management Systems (KIMMS) invited laboratories for the first time to participate in an audit to determine adult BC positivity rates, contamination rates, sample fill volumes and the proportion received as a single set. The overall aim of the KIMMS audit was to provide laboratories with a mechanism for peer review and benchmarking. Results from 45 laboratories were analysed. The majority of laboratories (n=28, 62%) reported a positivity rate outside the recommended range of 8-15%. Contamination rates ranged from zero (n=5) to 12.5%, with seven laboratories (15%) reporting a contamination rate greater than the recommended 3%. Fifteen laboratories (33%) reported an average fill volume of less than the recommended 8-10 mL per bottle, with 11 laboratories (24%) reporting fill volumes of 5 mL or less whilst 13 (28%) laboratories were not able to provide any fill volume data. Thirteen laboratories (29%) reported that 50% or more of BC were received as single set, and eight (17%) were not able to report this data. This audit highlights there are deficiencies in BC quality measures across laboratories. To support BC quality improvement efforts, RCPAQAP KIMMS will offer a yearly BC quality assurance audit to encourage laboratories to monitor their BC quality performance.

Attitudes of Australasian Clinicians and Laboratory Staff to Changing Fungal Nomenclature: Has Mycological Correctness Really Gone Mad?

Fungal nomenclature changes have been a regular occurrence in recent years, eliciting heated debate on whether such changes will confuse clinicians and harm patients. We conducted surveys of Australasian laboratory staff and clinicians to assess attitudes, practices, and concerns regarding nomenclatural change. The majority of respondents to both surveys were aware of fungal nomenclatural changes (93.5% laboratories, 79.7% clinicians); 72.8% of laboratories had already implemented nomenclature changes, and 68.7% of clinicians recalled receiving at least one laboratory report utilizing updated fungal nomenclature. The vast majority of clinicians (94%) both within and outside of infection specialties supported laboratories reporting updated species names with inclusion of the previous species name. The importance of including the previous name on reports was demonstrated by 73.3% of clinicians viewing "Nakaseomyces glabrata (formerly Candida glabrata)" as clinically significant, versus only 38.2% viewing "Pichia kudriavzeveii" as significant in the absence of its former name. When asked about reporting practices, 73.9% of laboratories would report a Candida krusei isolate as "Pichia kudriavzeveii (formerly Candida krusei)," with the rest reporting as "Candida krusei" (21.7%) or "Pichia kudriavzeveii" (1.1%) without further explanation. Laboratory concerns included clinicians being confused by reports, commonly used identification platforms continuing to use superseded species names, education of staff, and delays in updating species codes in laboratory information systems. Adopting fungal name changes appears to be well supported by laboratories and clinicians in Australia and New Zealand, and can be achieved safely and unambiguously provided the former name is included on reports. IMPORTANCE Recent changes in fungal species names have been contentious, eliciting heated debate on social media. Despite available recommendations on adapting to the changes, concerns include clinicians dismissing pathogens as contaminants with patient harm as a result, and disruption of the literature. Such concerns are understandable, but are not supported by evidence and may represent a vocal minority. This survey of Australasian laboratories and clinicians assesses attitudes and practices relating to changes in fungal nomenclature and found that there is overwhelming support for adopting nomenclature changes.

Blood culture quality assurance: what Australasian laboratories are measuring and opportunities for improvement.

Blood cultures are among the most important specimen types received and processed by the microbiology laboratory. Several publications list which variables should be measured to ensure quality. We undertook a qualitative structured questionnaire of Australian and New Zealand clinical microbiology laboratories to document current blood culture practices and to determine whether expected quality standards are being met. Questions included a wide range of pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical aspects of blood cultures from adults. The responses from 71 laboratories were analysed. Compliance was high for use of a biological safety cabinet (90%), incubating for 5 days (86%), and commenting on likely contaminants (85%). While Gram stains were reported within 2 hours during normal hours (93%), reporting was slower after hours (59%), p<0.001. The volume of blood collected for a clinical episode was poorly monitored with only 11% (n=8) of laboratories regularly auditing the number of blood culture sets and 3% (n=2) monitoring adequacy of fill. Most laboratories received blood cultures from off-site with just 34% (n=21) meeting guidance for loading bottles onto the analyser within 4 hours. More laboratories met standards for loading bottles onto the analyser during working hours than after hours: 87% vs 56%, p<0.001. Most laboratories did not monitor the contamination rate, 56% (n=40), and only 27% (n=19) knew their rate was below the guidance threshold of less than -3%. Considerable opportunities exist to improve quality assurance of blood culture practice in Australia and New Zealand, especially for the most critical aspect affecting culture sensitivity, the volume of blood collected.

The frequency and potential clinical impact of non-analytical errors in the RCPA Microbiology QAP 1987-2008.

BACKGROUND: Reliable reporting of laboratory results is an important component in the diagnosis and management of infectious diseases. We investigated the frequency of pre- and post-analytical errors by participants in the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) Microbiology Quality Assurance Program (MQAP). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed MQAP data 1987-1991 and 2004-2008. Pre-analytical error rates were based on participants' detection rate of clerical error for patient name and identification number for the given test item. Fictitious errors were defined as the reporting of a labelling error when in fact there was no discrepancy. Post-analytical error rates were based on clear transcription errors resulting in the test result being incorrectly assigned to another test item. FINDINGS: When there was one clerical error 10.6% of participants failed to report it. When there were two errors 5.3% failed to report either error and 8.8% only reported one error. Fictitious errors were reported by 1.1% of participants. Pre-analytical errors have not decreased over time. Of the 106 items where direct transposition errors were possible, 73 (69%) had at least one participant who transposed the results. During 2004-2008 transposition of mycobacterial smear and culture results occurred in 18% and 16% of participants, respectively. INTERPRETATIONS: Pre- and post-analytical errors are not rare amongst participants in the RCPA MQAP. These non-analytical components of the testing pathway require improvement because of their potential to adversely affect patient care.