Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T12:40:46.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cost Containment in Infection Control: Effect of DRGs on Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Raymond C. Bartlett*
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut
*
Division of Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT 06115-0729

Extract

Prospective reimbursement is changing hospital laboratories from profit centers to cost centers. As a result, hospital administrators will try to reduce expenses for operating laboratories. Clinical microbiology could suffer more seriously than other sections because these laboratories are least able to use automation to increase productivity. Both the volume of specimens submitted and the complexity of processing specimens continue to increase in most clinical microbiology laboratories and the only immediate solution, although unlikely, will be increases in personnel. Freezes on replacement hiring and elimination of vacated positions are already occurring in some laboratories. Increased work can be controlled by reducing the numbers of clinically unnecessary specimens that are submitted and the numbers of specimens that are of a type or of such quality that they would not be likely to produce clinically useful information. Secondly, the amount of work expended on certain types of specimens may be reduced both to eliminate unnecessary labor and produce reports that are actually more useful clinically. Eventually changes in the way in which hospitals and physicians are reimbursed may create a greater incentive for physicians to minimize laboratory use. In the meantime, the burden of living within available resources will fall on the clinical microbiologist.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Pezzlo, MT, Tan, GL, Peterson, EM, et al: Screening of urine cultures by three automated systems. J Clin Microbiol 1982; 15:468474.Google Scholar
2.Bartlett, RC, O'Neill, D, McLaughlin, JC: Detection of bacteriuria by leukocyte esterase, nitrite, and the automicrobic system. Am J Clin Pathol 1984; 82:683687.Google Scholar
3.Bartlett, RC: Medical microbiology: How far to go—how fast to go, in Lorian, V (ed): Significance of Medical Microbiology in the Care of Patients, ed 2. Baltimore, Williams and Wilkins, 1982.Google Scholar
4.Bartlett, RC, Treiber, N: Clinical significance of mixed bacterial cultures of urine. Am J Clin Pathol 1984; 82:3, 319322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Stamm, WE, Counts, GW, Running, KR, et al: Diagnosis of coliform infection in acutely dysuric women. N Engl J Med 1982; 307:463468.Google Scholar
6.Kass, EH: Infections of the urinary tract. St. Louis, C.V. Mosby, Current Therapy in Infectious Disease 1983-1984, pp 161166.Google Scholar