SUMMARYBackground.Bloodstream infection (BSI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world. Rapid identification of bloodstream pathogens is a laboratory practice that supports strategies for rapid transition to direct targeted therapy by providing for timely and effective patient care. In fact, the more rapidly that appropriate antimicrobials are prescribed, the lower the mortality for patients with sepsis. Rapid identification methods may have multiple positive impacts on patient outcomes, including reductions in mortality, morbidity, hospital lengths of stay, and antibiotic use. In addition, the strategy can reduce the cost of care for patients with BSIs.Objectives.The purpose of this review is to evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of three rapid diagnostic practices in decreasing the time to targeted therapy for hospitalized patients with BSIs. The review was performed by applying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative (LMBP) systematic review methods for quality improvement (QI) practices and translating the results into evidence-based guidance (R. H. Christenson et al., Clin Chem 57:816–825, 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.157131).Search strategy.A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies with measurable outcomes. A search of three electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL), databases containing “gray” literature (unpublished academic, government, or industry evidence not governed by commercial publishing) (CIHI, NIHR, SIGN, and other databases), and the Cochrane database for English-language articles published between 1990 and 2011 was conducted in July 2011.Dates of search.The dates of our search were from 1990 to July 2011.Selection criteria.Animal studies and non-English publications were excluded. The search contained the following medical subject headings: bacteremia; bloodstream infection; time factors; health care costs; length of stay; morbidity; mortality; antimicrobial therapy; rapid molecular techniques, polymerase chain reaction (PCR); in situ hybridization, fluorescence; treatment outcome; drug therapy; patient care team; pharmacy service, hospital; hospital information systems; Gram stain; pharmacy service; and spectrometry, mass, matrix-assisted laser desorption-ionization. Phenotypic as well as the following key words were searched: targeted therapy; rapid identification; rapid; Gram positive; Gram negative; reduce(ed); cost(s); pneumoslide; PBP2; tube coagulase; matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight; MALDI TOF; blood culture; EMR; electronic reporting; call to provider; collaboration; pharmacy; laboratory; bacteria; yeast; ICU; and others. In addition to the electronic search being performed, a request for unpublished quality improvement data was made to the clinical laboratory community.Main results.Rapid molecular testing with direct communication significantly improves timeliness compared to standard testing. Rapid ...

No abstract

OBJECTIVE:To develop methods for systematically reviewing evidence for identifying effective laboratory medicine (LM) practices associated with improved healthcare quality outcomes. RELEVANCE:Although many evidence-evaluation systems have been developed, none are designed to include and rate healthcare quality improvement studies to identify evidence-based practices that improve patient safety and LM quality. METHODS:Validated evidence-based medicine methods established by governmental agencies, the Guide to Community Preventive Services, and others were adapted for the LM field. Key methods modifications included (a) inclusion of quality improvement study designs; (b) mechanisms for inclusion of unpublished evidence, (c) combining of individual ratings of study quality, effect size, and relevance of outcome measures to evaluate consistency of practice evidence; and (d) deriving an overall strength rating to support evidencebased best practice recommendations. The methods follow the process steps of: ask; acquire; appraise; analyze; apply; and assess. Expert panels used the systematic evidence review results on practice effectiveness for improving healthcare quality outcomes consistent with the Institute of Medicine's healthcare quality aims (safe, timely, effective, equitable, efficient, and patient-centered).CONCLUSIONS: Adapting and developing methods from validated systems and applying them to systematically review and evaluate practices in LM by using published and unpublished studies is feasible. With these methods, evidence from quality improvement studies can be systematically synthesized and summarized to identify effective LM practices. Practical and scientifically validated demonstration of a positive impact on outcomes ensures that practitioners, policy makers, and decision makers at all levels have the evidence needed for improving healthcare quality and public health. © 2011 American Association for Clinical ChemistryNearly 100 000 deaths annually are attributable to medical error (1-3 ), prompting an increased emphasis on patient safety and quality improvement. Although more than 120 evidence-evaluation systems have been developed (4 ), none are designed to include observational quality improvement studies to identify evidence-based laboratory medicine (LM) 6 practices. For this reason the Division of Laboratory Science and Standards (DLSS) of the CDC has supported development of the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) initiative, which is a systematic, transparent approach for evaluating evidence and identifying effective healthcare quality improvement practices. In this special report we describe the LMBP systematic evidence review methods for identifying evidence-based practices that are effective in improving healthcare quality and patient outcomes in a manner consistent with the 6 healthcare quality aims of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), to provide healthcare that is patient centered, safe, timely, effective, efficient, and equitable (1 ).Practices are protocols, procedures, policies,...

Use of new straight needle venipuncture instead of IV starts is effective at reducing hemolysis rates in EDs, and is recommended as an evidence-based best practice. The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution to the body of evidence. When IV starts must be used, observed rates of hemolysis may be substantially reduced by placing the IV at the antecubital site.

Objectives-This is the first systematic review of the effectiveness of barcoding practices for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors. Design and Methods-The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. Results-A total of 17 observational studies reporting on barcoding systems are included in the body of evidence; 10 for patient specimens and 7 for point-of-care testing. All 17 studies favored barcoding, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for barcoding systems of 4.39 (95% CI: 3.05-6.32) and for point-of-care testing of 5.93 (95% CI: 5.28-6.67). Conclusions-Barcoding is effective for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors in diverse hospital settings and is recommended as an evidence-based "best practice." The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size rating is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution comprising almost half of the body of evidence.