National prevalence survey in Brazil to evaluate the quality of microbiology laboratories: the importance of defining priorities to allocate limited resources.

This report describes a survey of microbiology laboratories (n = 467) serving Brazilian hospitals with ≥10 intensive care beds and/or involved in the government health care adverse event reporting system. Coordinators were interviewed and laboratories classified as follows: Level 0 (no minimal functioning conditions-85.4% of laboratories); Level 1 (minimal functioning conditions but inadequate execution of basic routine-6.7%); Level 2 (minimal functioning conditions and adequate execution of basic routine but no adequate procedures for quality control-5.8%); Level 3 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, and adequate procedures for quality control, but no direct communication with the infection control department-0.9%); Level 4 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, and direct communication with infection control, but no available advanced resources-none); and Level 5 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, direct communication with infection control, and available advanced resources-0.9%). Twelve laboratories did not perform Ziehl-Neelsen staining; 271 did not have safety cabinets; and >30% without safety cabinets had automated systems. Low quality was associated with serving hospitals not participating in government adverse-event program; private hospitals; nonteaching hospitals; and those outside state capitals. Results may reflect what occurs in many other countries where defining priorities is important due to limited resources.

National prevalence survey in Brazil to evaluate the quality of microbiology laboratories: the importance of defining priorities to allocate limited resources / Encuesta de prevalencia nacional para evaluar la calidad de los laboratorios de microbiología en el Brasil: importancia de la definición de prioridades para asignar recursos limitados

This report describes a survey of microbiology laboratories (n = 467) serving Brazilian hospitals with >10 intensive care beds and/or involved in the government health care adverse event reporting system. Coordinators were interviewed and laboratories classified as follows: Level 0 (no minimal functioning conditions-85.4% of laboratories); Level 1 (minimal functioning conditions but inadequate execution of basic routine-6.7%); Level 2 (minimal functioning conditions and adequate execution of basic routine but no adequate procedures for quality control-5.8%); Level 3 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, and adequate procedures for quality control, but no direct communication with the infection control department-0.9%); Level 4 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, and direct communication with infection control, but no available advanced resources-none); and Level 5 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, direct communication with infection control, and available advanced resources-0.9%). Twelve laboratories did not perform Ziehl-Neelsen staining; 271 did not have safety cabinets; and >30% without safety cabinets had automated systems. Low quality was associated with serving hospitals not participating in government adverse-event program; private hospitals; nonteaching hospitals; and those outside state capitals. Results may reflect what occurs in many other countries where defining priorities is important due to limited resources.

Este artículo describe una encuesta realizada en Brasil en laboratorios de microbiología (n = 467) que prestaban servicio a hospitales que contaban al menos con 10 camas de cuidados intensivos. Se entrevistó a los coordinadores y los laboratorios se clasificaron de la siguiente manera: nivel 0 (sin condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas: 85,4% de los laboratorios), nivel 1 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas pero ejecución inadecuada del trabajo habitual básico: 6,7%), nivel 2 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas y ejecución adecuada del trabajo habitual básico, pero sin procedimientos de control de calidad apropiados: 5,8%), nivel 3 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas, ejecución adecuada del trabajo habitual básico y procedimientos de control de calidad apropiados, pero sin comunicación directa con el departamento de control de infecciones: 0,9%), nivel 4 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas, ejecución adecuada del trabajo habitual básico, procedimientos de control de calidad apropiados y comunicación directa con el departamento de control de infecciones, pero sin recursos avanzados disponibles: ningún laboratorio) y nivel 5 (condiciones de funcionamiento mínimas, ejecución adecuada del trabajo habitual básico, procedimientos de control de calidad apropiados, comunicación directa con el departamento de control de infecciones y recursos avanzados disponibles: 0,9%). Doce laboratorios no realizaban la tinción de Ziehl-Neelsen, 271 no contaban con cámaras de seguridad biológica, y más de 30% de los laboratorios que carecían de cámaras de seguridad biológica tenían sistemas automatizados. La escasa calidad se asoció a la falta de participación en el programa gubernamental de notificación de acontecimientos adversos, a los hospitales privados, a los hospitales no docentes y a la ubicación de los hospitales fuera de las capitales de los estados. Los resultados pueden reflejar lo que ocurre en muchos otros países con recursos limitados, donde es importante definir las prioridades.