Prospective evaluation of a matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry system in a hospital clinical microbiology laboratory for identification of bacteria and yeasts: a bench-by-bench study for assessing the impact on time to identification and cost-effectiveness.

Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) has been found to be an accurate, rapid, and inexpensive method for the identification of bacteria and yeasts. Previous evaluations have compared the accuracy, time to identification, and costs of the MALDI-TOF MS method against standard identification systems or commercial panels. In this prospective study, we compared a protocol incorporating MALDI-TOF MS (MALDI protocol) with the current standard identification protocols (standard protocol) to determine the performance in actual practice using a specimen-based, bench-by-bench approach. The potential impact on time to identification (TTI) and costs had MALDI-TOF MS been the first-line identification method was quantitated. The MALDI protocol includes supplementary tests, notably for Streptococcus pneumoniae and Shigella, and indications for repeat MALDI-TOF MS attempts, often not measured in previous studies. A total of 952 isolates (824 bacterial isolates and 128 yeast isolates) recovered from 2,214 specimens were assessed using the MALDI protocol. Compared with standard protocols, the MALDI protocol provided identifications 1.45 days earlier on average (P < 0.001). In our laboratory, we anticipate that the incorporation of the MALDI protocol can reduce reagent and labor costs of identification by $102,424 or 56.9% within 12 months. The model included the fixed annual costs of the MALDI-TOF MS, such as the cost of protein standards and instrument maintenance, and the annual prevalence of organisms encountered in our laboratory. This comprehensive cost analysis model can be generalized to other moderate- to high-volume laboratories.

General practitioners' views on the role of the community pharmacist.

AIM: to determine the views of general practitioners on the roles and activities of community pharmacists. METHOD: the views of 137 general practitioners in Otago and Southland were canvassed by postal questionnaire. RESULTS: one hundred and three completed questionnaires were returned. All of the general practitioners reported that their professional contact with pharmacists was useful. Seventy-five percent expressed a desire for greater cooperation. Nearly all respondents (99%) accepted that pharmacists have a role in screening prescriptions for possible problems and preparing and dispensing medicines. They also accepted that pharmacists were capable of treating and advising in the management of minor illnesses. Providing drug information to general practitioners, information about previously diagnosed conditions to patients, and advice on personal and home hygiene were less widely accepted activities. The majority indicated that they considered it inappropriate for pharmacists to undertake screening programmes (blood pressure (70.6%), cholesterol (70.6%), glucose (60.8%), haemoglobin (72.5%)). Younger general practitioners objected more often than older general practitioners to reclassification of Acetopt eye drops from prescription only to availability through pharmacies (p < 0.05). Female general practitioners were more often in favour of reclassification of Gyno-Daktarin than their male colleagues (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: this study shows that general practitioners accept several aspects of the current role of pharmacists in providing primary health care. However, there is room for improved communication between general practitioners and pharmacists to ensure optimum patient care.