Blood culture contamination in a district general hospital in the UK: a 1-year study
Nadeem Sajjad Raja A B , David Parratt A and Marilyn Meyers AA Southend University Hospital, Prittlewell Chase, Southend on Sea, SS0 0RY, UK.
B Corresponding author. Email: rajanadeem@doctors.org.uk
Healthcare Infection 14(3) 95-100 https://doi.org/10.1071/HI09012
Published: 26 August 2009
Abstract
Blood culture remains a gold standard to identify patients with bacteraemia. High contamination rates in blood culture are associated with prolonged hospital stay, inappropriate antimicrobial therapy and extra work in the microbiology laboratory. The blood culture contamination rate and the distribution of organisms from patients tested for bloodstream infections were determined for Southend University Hospital, UK. The study was conducted retrospectively over a 1-year period from August 2006 to July 2007 by reviewing patient clinical data collected at the time of positive blood culture and the microbiology records from Southend University Hospital. During the study period, 7203 blood cultures were processed in the microbiology laboratory. Of the total, 1254 (17.4%) were positive. A total of 535 were shown to be contaminated, giving an overall contamination rate of 7.4%. A total of 703 (9.8%) blood cultures were determined as genuinely positive. The highest numbers of false-positive blood cultures were recorded from the Accident and Emergency, Medical and Paediatric units. A total of 1380 organisms including bacteria and fungi were isolated. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci (547 isolates, 39.3%) were the most commonly isolated organisms, followed by Escherichia coli (132 isolates, 9.6%), Staphylococcus aureus (130 isolates, 9.4%), and Streptococcus species (85 isolates, 6.2%). The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was low, whereas the extended-spectrum β-lactamase producing E. coli and Enterobacter species was high and Klebsiella species was low. The study indicates a high contamination rate of blood cultures and supports the need for regular training and education of healthcare professionals who collect blood samples.
[1] Leibovici L, Sharga I, Drucker M, Konigsberger H, Samra Z, Pitlik SD. The benefit of appropriate empirical antibiotic treatment in patients with bloodstream infection. J Intern Med 1998; 244 379–86.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed | [verified June 2009].
[29] Wisplinghoff H, Bischoff T, Tallent SM, Seifert H, Wenzel RP, Edmond MP. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24 179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39 309–17.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | PubMed |
[30] Reynold R, Potz N, Colman M, Williams A, Livermore D, MacGowan A, BSAC Working Party on Bacteraemia Resistance Surveillance Antimicrobial susceptibility of the pathogens of bacteremia in the UK and Ireland 2001–2002: the BSAC Bacteraemia Resistance Surveillance Programme. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 53 1018–32.
[31] Cox RA, Conquest C, Mallaghan C, Marples RR. A major outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus caused by a new phage-type (EMRSA-16). J Hosp Infect 1995; 29 87–106.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[32] Johnson AP, Pearson A, Duckworth G. Surveillance and epidemiology of MRSA bacteraemia in the UK. J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 56 455–62.
[33] Hyle EP, Lipworth AD, Zaotis TE, Nachamkin I, Fishman NO, Bilker WB, et al. Risk factors for increasing multidrug resistance among extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella species. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40 1317–24.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |