Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-8cg97 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-23T05:08:43.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do blood contamination reduction devices work? A single institution comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2024

Maria E. Navas Open the ORCID record for Maria E. Navas [Opens in a new window] ,
Salman Siddiq ,
Laurie Bauer Open the ORCID record for Laurie Bauer [Opens in a new window] ,
Jose A. Rivera Open the ORCID record for Jose A. Rivera [Opens in a new window] ,
Anita J. White ,
Stella Ache ,
Mark Osborne ,
Nataliya Kachaluba ,
Brian Klonowski Open the ORCID record for Brian Klonowski [Opens in a new window]  and
Christine Robbins
...Show all authors
Maria E. Navas*
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Salman Siddiq
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Laurie Bauer
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Jose A. Rivera
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Anita J. White
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Stella Ache
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Mark Osborne
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Nataliya Kachaluba
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Brian Klonowski
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Christine Robbins
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
Curtis Donskey
Affiliation:
Louis Stokes VA Medical Center, VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System, Cleveland, OH, USA
*
Corresponding author: Maria E. Navas; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compare two initial specimen diversion devices evaluated over 3 months to investigate their utility in lowering blood culture contamination rates at or below 1%. Overall contamination rates during trial periods were 2.46% and 2.60% but usage was low, whereas device-specific contamination rates were 0.68% and 0.8%, respectively.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 2025 , pp. 93 - 95
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Centers for Disease control and Prevention. Blood culture contamination: an overview for infection control and antibiotic stewardship programs working with the clinical laboratory. https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/core-elements/pdfs/fs-bloodculture-508.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2022.Google Scholar
Geisler, BP, Jilg, N, Patton, RG, Pietzsch, JB. Model to evaluate the impact of hospital-based interventions targeting false-positive blood cultures on economic and clinical outcomes. J Hosp Infect 2019;102:438–444. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2019.03.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Principles and Procedures for Blood Cultures, 2nd edition. Wayne PA: CLSI Document M47-E2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2022.Google Scholar
Sen Heinrich, M. [D-N. Text - S.2604 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2022 (2021-08-04) [Legislation]. http://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2604/text. Accessed August 4, 2021.Google Scholar
Doern, G. V., Carroll, K. C., Diekema, D. J., et al. Practical guidance for clinical microbiology laboratories: a comprehensive update on the problem of blood culture contamination and a discussion of methods for addressing the problem. Clin Microbiol Rev 2019;33:e00009–19. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00009-19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, T, Norris, W. Skin fragments removed by injection needles. Lancet 1958;2:983–5. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(58)90475-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchta, C, Nedorost, N, Regele, H, et al. Skin plugs in phlebotomy puncture for blood donation. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2005;117:141–4. doi: 10.1007/s00508-005-0310-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tompkins, LS, Tien, V, Madison, AN. Getting to zero: Impact of a device to reduce blood culture contamination and false-positive central-line-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2023;44:1386–1390. doi: 10.1017/ice.2022.284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rupp, M. E., Cavalieri, R. J., Marolf, C., & Lyden, E. Reduction in blood culture contamination through use of initial specimen diversion device. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:201–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix304 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, FS, Assous, MV, Yinnon, AM, Wiener-Well, Y. Reducing blood culture contamination using a departmental report card. J Hosp Infect 2018;99:236–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2018.02.023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed