Enhanced recovery of fungal isolates from blood by using the Isolator system has been reported previously. We examined bacterial and fungal blood cultures during a 14-month period to determine if this enhanced recovery required a separate fungal culture and to determine the differential utility between a fungal blood culture and a routine bacterial culture. During this period, 84 of 5,196 (1.6%) fungal blood cultures and 170 of 25,702 (0.6%) bacterial blood cultures were positive for yeast or filamentous fungi. Thirty-seven positive fungal cultures, simultaneously collected, had correspondingly positive bacterial cultures. An additional 15 positive fungal cultures yielded isolates that had either been previously recovered from a bacterial culture or were recovered from a bacterial culture collected within 48 h. Of the 32 unpaired fungal cultures remaining, 5 were Candida albicans whose unique isolation was believed to be the result of specimen sampling variance rather than any enhanced recovery characteristics of fungal culture methods. Examination of patient data relating to the 27 remaining isolates (24 patient episodes) showed that only five fungal blood cultures (0.096% of all collected) had any impact on patient therapy decisions, and one of these was judged to be the cause of unnecessary therapy. Our data suggest that separate fungal cultures of blood are not cost-effective for those laboratories using the Isolator for routine blood cultures and furthermore may not be cost-effective for laboratories using automated broth systems that are comparable to the Isolator in recovery of fungi.

PURPOSE: Adequate understanding of the goals and adverse effects of cancer treatment has important implications for patients’ decision making, expectations, and mood. This study sought to identify the degree to which patients and clinicians agreed upon the goals and adverse effects of treatment (ie, concordance). METHODS: Patients completed a demographic questionnaire, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer, the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Treatment Satisfaction-General questionnaire, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being questionnaire, and a 13-item questionnaire about the goals and adverse effects of treatment. Providers completed a 12-item questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred patients (51 female) and 34 providers participated (questionnaire return rate mean difference, 5 days; SD, 16 days). Patient and provider dyads agreed 61% of the time regarding the intent of treatment. In cases of nonagreement, 36% of patients reported more optimistic therapy goals compared to providers. Patients and providers agreed 69% of the time regarding the patient’s acknowledgement and understanding of adverse effects. Patients who reported an understanding of likely adverse effects endorsed significantly lower distress scores (mean, 2.5) than those who endorsed not understanding associated adverse effects (mean, 4.1; P = .008). CONCLUSION: Timely data capturing of patient-provider dyadic ratings is feasible. A significant discrepancy exists between a substantial percentage of patients’ and providers’ views of the intent and adverse effects of treatment. Patients were almost always more optimistic about the intent of treatment. Higher rates of distress were noted in cases of discordance. Providers may benefit from conversational feedback from patients as well as other integrated feedback systems to inform them about patient understanding.

Increased use of rifampicin for in-patients was noted after the laboratory began reporting rifampicin susceptibilities routinely for all Gram-positive bacterial isolates. The appropriateness of rifampicin use was evaluated by chart review for in-patients administered rifampicin during two time periods, before and during routine rifampicin susceptibility reporting, respectively. While rifampicin susceptibility was reported routinely, four patients were subjected to potentially harmful misuse of rifampicin. These findings reconfirm the necessity of interdepartmental consultation and extensive staff education whenever a modification of antimicrobial susceptibility profile reporting is contemplated. Furthermore, they underscore the role of the clinical microbiology laboratory in guiding antimicrobial therapy through limited reporting of susceptibility data.

Introduction: Patient compliance with routine monitoring for