Skip to content
1887

Abstract

Sepsis is a major contributor to the global burden of disease. Its effective treatment is time-critical and relies on timely access to significant blood culture (BC) results.

The value of BC results to the requesting service is reduced by delays in report completion. Centralized clinical laboratory networks have little insight into pre-analytical causes of delayed BC results.

We aimed to assess variations in laboratory investigation of bloodstream infection and sepsis throughout a state-wide laboratory network, with the goal to design suitable remedial action.

We analysed BCs from collection to final reporting in a public pathology service by univariate analysis and supervised machine learning.

Of the 5,436 first-positive BCs from all Western Australian (WA) public laboratories in 2023, 1,343 (24.7%) came from regional sources. A total of 1,052 (78.3%) regional BCs were from emergency departments, and 831 (64.5%) of these were collected out of hours, rising during the 24 h cycle. Regional BCs took 33 h more than urban area cultures to reach a final report (103 compared with 70 h). Regional BC Gram stains were delayed by 31 h (69 compared with 38 h) and took over 97 h from collection to report in 25% regional Gram-stain results. Regional BCs added a 15 h delay to first results when significant species were mixed with potential contaminants, and 23 h when mixed with other significant species.

In WA, substantial delays to actionable BC results were common. The time taken to transport specimens to a laboratory was a small fraction of these delays. Monitoring of the steps in BC workflow completion can be used to improve the quality and safety of BC service provision within the limits of current technology, though solutions to this critical capability gap vary with location.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (Award 2021/2012074)
    • Principal Award Recipient: TimothyJ. J. Inglis
  • Western Australian Future Health and Innovation Fund, Government of Western Australia (Award Fellowship grant 2021)
    • Principal Award Recipient: TimothyJ. J. Inglis
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. This article was made open access via a Publish and Read agreement between the Microbiology Society and the corresponding author’s institution.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.002151
2026-04-07
2026-04-22

Metrics

Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/75/4/jmm002151.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.002151&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Shemanski S, Bennett N, Essmyer C, Kennedy K, Buchanan DM et al. Centralized communication of blood culture results leveraging antimicrobial stewardship and rapid diagnostics. Open Forum Infect Dis 2019; 6:ofz321 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Lamy B, Sundqvist M, Idelevich EA. ESCMID Study Group for Bloodstream Infections, Endocarditis and Sepsis (ESGBIES) Bloodstream infections - standard and progress in pathogen diagnostics. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020; 26:142–150 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Meda M, Clayton J, Varghese R, Rangaiah J, Grundy C et al. What are the critical steps in processing blood cultures? A prospective audit evaluating current practice of reporting blood cultures in a centralised laboratory serving secondary care hospitals. J Clin Pathol 2017; 70:361–366 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Paton TF, Marr I, O’Keefe Z, Inglis TJJ. Development, deployment and in-field demonstration of mobile coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic acid amplification test. J Med Microbiol 2021; 70:001346 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Inglis TJJ, Paton TF, Leung MJ, Thomas E. Pre-analytical delays in blood culture pathway do not always postpone actionable results. In P1925, Programme, ESCMID GlobalBarcelona, Spain, 27th Apr 2024
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Stokkou S, Geginat G, Schlüter D, Tammer I. Direct disk diffusion test using European clinical antimicrobial susceptibility testing breakpoints provides reliable results compared with the standard method. Eur J Microbiol Immunol 2015; 5:103–111 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bzdyl NM, Urosevic N, Payne B, Brockenshire R, McIntyre M et al. Field trials of blood culture identification FilmArray in regional Australian hospitals. J Med Microbiol 2018; 67:669–675 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bruins MJ, Egbers MJ, Israel TM, Diepeveen SHA, Wolfhagen MJHM. Reduced length of hospital stay through a point of care placed automated blood culture instrument. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2017; 36:619–623 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bucala M, Hopfner D, Sharma M, Nomides N, Madigan J et al. Does it matter who performs blood culture collection? Results of a survey assessing phlebotomist, nurse, and resident knowledge of blood culture collection protocols. J Infect Prev 2024; 25:82–84 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Emeraud C, Yilmaz S, Fortineau N, Cuzon G, Dortet L. Quality indicators for blood culture: 1 year of monitoring with BacT/Alert Virtuo at a French hospital. J Med Microbiol 2021; 70:001300 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.002151
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.002151
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error