RESUMO
Objective To compare the difference of simple-rapid identification method and automatic biochemical identification method in the identification of Escherichia coli .Methods The strains of Escherichia coli isolated from clinical samples were identi-fied by the simple-rapid method and automatic biochemical method .The consistency of result and the time of two methods were compared .Results Among 492 suspected strains ,248 strains were identified as Escherichia coli by simple-rapid method ,and other 244 strains were not .Meanwhile ,231 strains of these 248 Escherichia coli strains and 7 strains of 244 non Escherichia coli strains were identified as Escherichia coli by automatic biochemical method .The positive and negative predictive value of simple-rapid method were 93 .1% (231/248) and 97 .1% (237/244) .2 .5-7 .0 h [average(4 .12 ± 1 .08) h] were used to identify Escherichia coli by automatic biochemical method while0 .5-2 .0 h[average(1 .08 ± 0 .45) h] were used by simple-rapid method ,the difference was statistically significant(t= -40 .252 ,P<0 .001) .Conclusion The result of simple-rapid method is close to that of automatic bio-chemical identification method on Escherichia coli ,and simple-rapid method used less time .
RESUMO
Objective To compare the difference of simple-rapid identification method and automatic biochemical identification method in the identification of Escherichia coli .Methods The strains of Escherichia coli isolated from clinical samples were identi-fied by the simple-rapid method and automatic biochemical method .The consistency of result and the time of two methods were compared .Results Among 492 suspected strains ,248 strains were identified as Escherichia coli by simple-rapid method ,and other 244 strains were not .Meanwhile ,231 strains of these 248 Escherichia coli strains and 7 strains of 244 non Escherichia coli strains were identified as Escherichia coli by automatic biochemical method .The positive and negative predictive value of simple-rapid method were 93 .1% (231/248) and 97 .1% (237/244) .2 .5-7 .0 h [average(4 .12 ± 1 .08) h] were used to identify Escherichia coli by automatic biochemical method while0 .5-2 .0 h[average(1 .08 ± 0 .45) h] were used by simple-rapid method ,the difference was statistically significant(t= -40 .252 ,P<0 .001) .Conclusion The result of simple-rapid method is close to that of automatic bio-chemical identification method on Escherichia coli ,and simple-rapid method used less time .
RESUMO
Objective To investigate the present situation of critical value management in clinical laboratory,and propose im-provement measures.Methods Retrospectively analyze on the 506 cases of critical value reports in the hospital in September 2013, including the distribution of critical value items,the frequency critical value reports at different time in one day,the amount of criti-cal values reported in different department and so on.Results The most reported critical value item was platelet(PLT),which ac-counted for 16.80%,followed by WBC(13.24%)and serum creatinine(12.25%);Critical value reported mostly between 9:00 and 11:00,which accounted for 34% of one days′s reports;The amount of the critical value reports on Tuesday and Thursday were more than that on Sunday;Critical values reported for the patients of Intensive Medical Center(ICU)accounted for the highest pro-portion(24.70%),followed by those of nephrology department(21.15%)and hematology department(19.57%).Conclusion Criti-cal value reporting system should be strictly executed in clinical laboratory;Critical values should be carefully registrated in clinical deparments;Annual inspection of critical value system is required.
RESUMO
Objective To analyze medical critical value management present situation,proposed the corresponding counter-measure.Methods Used a retrospective analysis method to analyse 506 cases of medical critical value report in the Second People’s Hospital of Neijiang City in September of 2014,and did constituent ratio of critical values with software,and differ-ent time frequency,critical values occur in different clinical departments,critical value report etc.Results The highest rate of the critical value of laboratory medicine was platelet (PLT),the project was accounted for a total 16.80%,followed by:white blood cell (WBC)13.24%,serum creatinine (Cr)12.25%.Critical value report was concentrated at 9:00~11:00,ac-counted for about 34%;Tuesday and Thursday urgent value reported more volume,Sunday less.Critical value report number was:severe medical center (ICU)accounted for 24.70% of the total number of emergency,department of internal medicine for 21.15%,Department of hematology for 19.57%.Conclusion The inspection department personnel must seriously im-plement the critical value report system of laboratory medicine,clinical departments to seriously implement the critical value reporting and registration system.Each year,according to the evaluation of medical test critical values,ensure medical quality and safety.
RESUMO
Objective To assay the comparative study and bias estimation of the patient′s serum samples ALT by using the reagents of Beckman Co.and ALT LiquiUV of Human Co.Germany.Methods According to the file of NCCLS-EP9-A of America: every day , take 8 patient samples, analyze each patient samples ALT in duplicate using two kinds of methods separately, and write down the inspection results in 5 days altogether, then evaluate the bias estimation of the different reagents.Results When analyzing the ALT of patient′s fresh serum in the two different reagents, its expected relativity bias could be accepted in the linear range of the method. At the same time, analyzing the different ALT of control mass, its relativity bias could be more than 20%.Conclusion When measuring the serum sample ALT in Beckman′s reagents and Human′s, its relativity bias could be accepted in the linear range.On the other hand, for different control mass have different the relativity bias,the largest bias could reach 27.6%.