Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Infect Dis Clin North Am ; 35(3): 789-802, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1340083

ABSTRACT

A great clinical microbiology laboratory supporting a great infection prevention program requires focusing on the following services: rapid and accurate identification of pathogens associated with health care-associated infections; asymptomatic surveillance for health care-acquired pathogens before infections arise; routine use of broad and flexible antimicrobial susceptibility testing to direct optimal therapy; implementation of epidemiologic tracking tools to identify outbreaks; development of clear result communication with interpretative comments for clinicians. These goals are best realized in a collaborative relationship with the infection prevention program so that both can benefit from the shared priorities of providing the best patient care.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Infection Control/methods , Laboratories, Hospital , Bacterial Infections/transmission , Humans , Laboratories/organization & administration
2.
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis ; 99(1): 115200, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-741169

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States created a unique situation where multiple molecular SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays rapidly received Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA and were validated by laboratories and utilized clinically, all within a period of a few weeks. We compared the performance of four of these assays that were evaluated for use at our institution: Abbott RealTime m2000 SARS-CoV-2 Assay, DiaSorin Simplexa COVID-19 Direct, Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2, and Abbott ID NOW COVID-19. Nasopharyngeal and nasal specimens were collected from 88 ED and hospital-admitted patients and tested by the four methods in parallel to compare performance. ID NOW performance stood out as significantly worse than the other 3 assays despite demonstrating comparable analytic sensitivity. Further study determined that the use of a nasal swab compared to a nylon flocked nasopharyngeal swab, as well as use in a population chronically vs. acutely positive for SARS-CoV-2, were substantial factors.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/standards , Emergency Service, Hospital , Hospitals, University , Humans , Inpatients , Limit of Detection , Nasopharynx/virology , Nose/virology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL