Culture of periprosthetic tissue specimens in blood culture bottles is more sensitive than conventional techniques, but the impact on laboratory workflow has yet to be addressed. Herein, we examined the impact of culture of periprosthetic tissues in blood culture bottles on laboratory workflow and cost. The workflow was process mapped, decision tree models were constructed using probabilities of positive and negative cultures drawn from our published study (T. N. Peel, B. L. Dylla, J. G. Hughes, D. T. Lynch, K. E. Greenwood-Quaintance, A. C. Cheng, J. N. Mandrekar, and R. Patel, mBio 7:e01776-15, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01776-15), and the processing times and resource costs from the laboratory staff time viewpoint were used to compare periprosthetic tissues culture processes using conventional techniques with culture in blood culture bottles. Sensitivity analysis was performed using various rates of positive cultures. Annualized labor savings were estimated based on salary costs from the U.S. Labor Bureau for Laboratory staff. The model demonstrated a 60.1% reduction in mean total staff time with the adoption of tissue inoculation into blood culture bottles compared to conventional techniques (mean ± standard deviation, 30.7 ± 27.6 versus 77.0 ± 35.3 h per month, respectively; < 0.001). The estimated annualized labor cost savings of culture using blood culture bottles was $10,876.83 (±$337.16). Sensitivity analysis was performed using various rates of culture positivity (5 to 50%). Culture in blood culture bottles was cost-effective, based on the estimated labor cost savings of $2,132.71 for each percent increase in test accuracy. In conclusion, culture of periprosthetic tissue in blood culture bottles is not only more accurate than but is also cost-saving compared to conventional culture methods.

No abstract

No abstract

Context.— Preanalytic errors, including specimen labeling errors and specimen loss, occur frequently during specimen collection, transit, and accessioning. Radio-frequency identification tags can decrease specimen identification and tracking errors through continuous and automated tracking of specimens. Objective.— To implement a specimen tracking infrastructure to reduce preanalytic errors (specimen mislabeling or loss) between specimen collection and laboratory accessioning. Specific goals were to decrease preanalytic errors by at least 70% and to simultaneously decrease employee effort dedicated to resolving preanalytic errors or investigating lost specimens. Design.— A radio-frequency identification specimen-tracking system was developed. Major features included integral radio-frequency identification labels (radio-frequency identification tags and traditional bar codes in a single printed label) printed by point-of-care printers in collection suites; dispersed radio-frequency identification readers at major transit points; and systems integration of the electronic health record, laboratory information system, and radio-frequency identification tracking system to allow for computerized physician order entry driven label generation, specimen transit time tracking, interval-based alarms, and automated accessioning. Results.— In the 6-month postimplementation period, 6 mislabeling events occurred in collection areas using the radio-frequency identification system, compared with 24 events in the 6-month preimplementation period (75% decrease; P = .001). In addition, the system led to the timely recovery of 3 lost specimens. Labeling expenses were decreased substantially in the transition from high-frequency to ultrahigh frequency radio-frequency identification tags. Conclusions.— Radio-frequency identification specimen tracking prevented several potential specimen-loss events, decreased specimen recovery time, and decreased specimen labeling errors. Increases in labeling/tracking expenses for the system were more than offset by time savings and loss avoidance through error mitigation.

No abstract