4.5 Review

Effectiveness of practices to reduce blood culture contamination: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 45, Issue 13-14, Pages 999-1011

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.06.007

Keywords

Bacterial infections/diagnosis; Blood culture; Blood specimen collection/methods/standards; Comparative effectiveness research; Contamination; False positive reactions; Healthcare quality improvement; Laboratory medicine; Phlebotomy; Practice guideline

Funding

  1. Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative [W911NF-07-D0001/DO 0191/TCN 07235]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This article is a systematic review of the effectiveness of three practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates: venipuncture, phlebotomy teams, and prepackaged preparation/collection (prep) kits. Design and methods: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. Results: Studies included as evidence were: 9 venipuncture (vs. versus intravenous catheter), 5 phlebotomy team; and 7 prep kit. All studies for venipuncture and phlebotomy teams favored these practices, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for venipuncture of 2.69 and phlebotomy teams of 2.58. For prep kits 6 studies effect sizes were not statistically significantly different from no effect (meta-analysis mean odds ratio 1.12). Conclusions: Venipuncture and the use of phlebotomy teams are effective practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates in diverse hospital settings and are recommended as evidence-based best practices with high overall strength of evidence and substantial effect size ratings. No recommendation is made for or against prep kits based on uncertain improvement. (C) 2012 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available