[The ways of harmonization of clinical laboratory measurement techniques].

The results of implementation of different clinical laboratory techniques are to be equal in clinically significant limits to be optimally applied in diagnostics of diseases and treatment of patients. When the results of laboratory tests are not standardized and harmonized for the very same clinical assay the results can be expressed by unmatched numbers. Unfortunately, in some handbooks the values are presented based on the results of application of specific laboratory techniques without considering possibility or likelihood of differences between various techniques. When this is a case, accumulation of data of diferent clinical research studies and working out of clinical handbooks on this basis will be inconsistent. Inadequate understanding of issue that the results of laboratory tests are not standardized and harmonized can lead to incorrect clinical, financial, managerial or technical decisions. The standardization of clinical laboratory techniques was applied to many measurands related to primary referent techniques (standard specimen of pure substance) or/and developed referent measurement techniques. However, harmonization of clinical laboratory techniques for those measurands which are not related any developed measurement techniques is quite problematic due to inadequate determination of measurand, its inadequate analytical specificity, insufficient attention to commutability of referent materials and poor systematic approach to harmonization. To overcome these issues an infrastructure is to be developed to support systematic approach to identification and prioritization of measurands which are to be harmonized on the basis of clinical importance and technical applicability. The management of technical implementation harmonization process for specific measurands.

Nosocomial gram-negative bloodstream isolates: a comparison of in vitro antibiotic potency.

Nosocomial bloodstream infections add to the morbidity, mortality and length of hospitalization that is attributed to the underlying diseases alone. We have compared the in vitro potency of fifteen antibiotics against 136 isolates from clinically significant nosocomial gram-negative bacteraemias. Ciprofloxacin was the most potent antibiotic and had the broadest spectrum of activity (98% of isolates susceptible, MIC90 range: 0.06-0.5 micrograms ml-1). We subjected all isolates to beta-lactamase induction but antibiotic susceptibility was unaffected by this procedure.

Comparative efficacy of alternative hand-washing agents in reducing nosocomial infections in intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Effective hand-washing can prevent nosocomial infections, particularly in high-risk areas of the hospital. There are few clinical studies of the efficacy of specific hand-cleansing agents in preventing the transmission of pathogens from health care workers to patients. METHODS: For eight months, we conducted a prospective multiple-crossover trial involving 1894 adult patients in three intensive care units (ICUs). In a given month, the ICU used a hand-washing system involving either chlorhexidine, a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent, or 60 percent isopropyl alcohol with the optional use of a nonmedicated soap; in alternate months the other system was used. Rates of nosocomial infection and hand-washing compliance were monitored prospectively. RESULTS: When chlorhexidine was used, there were 152 nosocomial infections, as compared with 202 when the combination of alcohol and soap was used (adjusted incidence-density ratio [IDR], 0.73; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.90). The largest reduction with chlorhexidine was in gastrointestinal infections (IDR, 0.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.64). When chlorhexidine was available, the rates of nosocomial infection declined in each of the ICUs, and health care workers washed their hands more often than when alcohol and soap were used (relative risk, 1.28; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.60). The total volume of alcohol and soap used was 46 percent that of chlorhexidine (P less than 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A hand-disinfection system using an antimicrobial agent (chlorhexidine) reduces the rate of nosocomial infections more effectively than one using alcohol and soap. The improvement may be explained at least in part by better compliance with hand-washing instructions when chlorhexidine was used.