“Too much information”

The Art of Microbiology, ,

Can the microbiology lab give too much information to the clinicians?

Take the following hypothetical example regarding reporting of enteric type organisms:

Patient X presents with acute appendicitis with perforation. They are taken to theatre for appendicectomy and peritoneal washout, and started on IV cefuroxime and metronidazole. The sample of peritoneal fluid is returned from the microbiology lab as being “mixed enteric flora”. the patient recovers well, and they are discharged after 3 days on oral co-amoxiclav to complete a 1 week course of antibiotics.

Patient Y presents with acute appendicitis with perforation. They are taken to theatre for appendicectomy and peritoneal washout, and started on IV cefuroxime and metronidazole. However, in this patient, the microbiology lab decides to work up the individual organisms in the peritoneal fluid sample. The report states that the patient has grown an ESBL E.coli, an Enterococcus faecium, a Pseudomonas aeruginosa and a Candida albicans. Even though the patient is recovering well, the clinician feels obliged to cover the organisms that the micro lab has grown and reported, and changes the antibiotic therapy to meropenem, vancomycin and fluconazole. The patient unfortunately develops a bout of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea (!), extending their hospital stay by a week.

Microbiology labs can get very nervous about reporting “mixed enteric flora” from sterile site samples. They really shouldn’t be.

Here are a few pointers as to when it may be reasonable for the microbiology laboratory to report “mixed enteric flora”

  • Non-sterile site samples:- almost always
  • When several organism types are present- the number of different microorganism types present in a sample is inversely proportional to the value the lab can provide to the clinician
  • When no specific organism is dominant over the others
  • When source control has been achieved-this is important as in the hypothetical example above.
  • Drain samples- generally of low value unless the drain has just been inserted
  • When the clinical microbiologist has liaised with clinical team and clear that patient is doing well on current therapy- Treat the patient, not the result.

Such an approach saves the lab time and money, and may also be beneficial to the patient, as demonstrated above. Sometimes in our efforts to do the right thing, we end up trying just a bit too hard…

Michael

 

 

 

“Less is more in the microbiology laboratory?”

The Art of Microbiology, , ,

I am by nature quite a lazy person. Don’t get me wrong, I am not afraid of working hard at times, but I am always on the lookout for ways in which I can optimise the productivity and the quality of the laboratory, whilst creating time and resource for other opportunities.

Time and effort are terrible performance metrics…

Aside from efficiencies, can doing less work in the microbiology laboratory actually lead to better patient outcomes? We know that our ultimate aim is to improve patient management. Are there circumstances where in our enthusiasm to optimise patient care, we might actually do the opposite?

Here are some examples where doing less work in the microbiology lab might actually be beneficial to patient care:

Minimising work up on probable contaminants – If coagulase negative staphylococci isolated from blood cultures are routinely reported with susceptibility profiles without any supporting clinical information that they might actually be significant, this will lead to unnecessary antibiotic use with the potential for adverse effects, along with the potential for delayed patient discharge.

Avoiding tests with low clinical utility – Sputum cultures in the community setting are rarely useful, and the results may lead to undertreatment, overtreatment or simply the wrong treatment.

Reducing unnecessary microbiology tests– Rejecting urine cultures from patients where there is no evidence of UTI symptoms on the request form prevents unnecessary treatment of these patients with antibiotics.

Not processing duplicate specimens – Rejecting repeat samples (e.g. urine, sputum, stool) submitted on the same day from the one patient means that conflicting results are avoided.

Avoiding overuse of broad-range multiplex PCR panels – Running a full respiratory viral panel for a simple upper respiratory tract infection may end up delaying patient discharge from hospital. More targeted testing is often better.

Following proper sample collection and rejection criteria – Rejecting poorly collected specimens (e.g., saliva instead of sputum for pneumonia testing) avoids misleading results and unnecessary treatments.

Optimised result reporting – For example, reporting Group C/G beta-haemolytic streptococci from throat swabs in patients with acute pharyngitis may lead to unnecessary antibiotic prescribing. Along the same lines, testing and reporting unnecessarily broad antibiotics when performing susceptibility testing can lead to unnecessarily broad antibiotic coverage with concomitant side-effects on the patient and selection of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

As demonstrated above, there are lots of ways in which doing less work in the microbiology lab is not only cost-efficient, but it can also improve the overall management of the patient.

As the range of different assays we are able to offer in the microbiology lab continues to increase, we need to constantly review our current test repertoire and whether it is providing significant value to the clinicians, and ultimately the patient.

Less is often more when it comes to the microbiology laboratory.

Michael

“Bias in the diagnostic microbiology laboratory”

The Art of Microbiology, ,

We are all fundamentally flawed as humans. We just have to do the best we can given our limitations.

I attended an interesting clinical Grand Round at my local hospital last week. Whilst the case presented was intriguing, it was the presenters’ focus on the different types of cognitive bias which are seen in clinical medicine which really caught my attention. 

It got me thinking… Do the same types of bias apply when reading and interpreting microbial cultures on agar plates?

The answer is of course yes.

Below are examples of the main types of cognitive bias one might be subject to when reading agar plates:

  • Confirmation Bias – Scientists may interpret bacterial growth in a way that confirms their expectations or prior hypotheses. For example, if they expect a certain antibiotic to inhibit growth, they might unconsciously downplay colonies that appear resistant.

  • Anchoring Bias – The first observation or previous experience can heavily influence interpretation. If a scientist has seen a particular growth pattern before, such as satellitism of Haemophilus influenzae around Staphylococcus aureus they might assume it’s the same species or reaction without fully considering other possibilities. 

  • Availability Heuristic – The tendency to rely on readily available examples in memory. If a scientist recently encountered an unusual bacterial isolate, they might overestimate its likelihood when analysing new plates, leading to misidentification.

  • Observer-Expectancy Effect – The scientist’s expectations may subtly influence how they interpret ambiguous results. For instance, if they believe a sample contains Streptococcus pneumoniae, they might unconsciously interpret the MALDI-TOF result as such, and ignore the possibility of Streptococcus mitis.

  • Hindsight Bias – After identifying bacterial species via additional testing, e.g. MALDI-TOF, scientists might believe the identification was more obvious than it actually was when first observing the plate, leading to overconfidence in future interpretations.

…and then of course there is the classical clinical judgement bias, that of “Premature Closure” where an “easy” or quick diagnosis is made, and further investigations into a more challenging/important secondary diagnosis are withheld because of this. It happens not infrequently in clinical medicine. An example of this in the microbiology laboratory might be a patient with crystals in a synovial fluid sample leading to a diagnosis of gout, where sufficient duration of culture was not performed to pick up the secondary diagnosis of septic arthritis!

Now that we can simply google the key biochemical reactions of E. coli, maybe cognitive bias is the sort of thing we should be teaching microbiology students, so that they are aware of the sub-conscious ways we can slip up when reading agar plates, no matter how good our intentions… A nice exam question perhaps!

Michael