Does it matter who performs blood culture collection? Results of a survey assessing phlebotomist, nurse, and resident knowledge of blood culture collection protocols.

Blood cultures are the primary method for diagnosing bloodstream infections. However, blood culture contamination (BCC) can lead to unnecessary antibiotic treatment, additional tests, and extended patient time in the hospital. The aim of this quality improvement project was to evaluate healthcare workers' knowledge of blood culture collection protocols and evaluate the blood culture contamination rates of laboratory and non-laboratory staff. We performed a retrospective review of contaminated cultures between May 2021 and April 2022, and anonymous surveys were distributed to assess staff knowledge of proper blood culture collection protocols. Laboratory staff (phlebotomy) had an overall BCC rate of 4.6% compared to a non-laboratory staff (nurses, residents, and medical students) rate of 9.7% (p < 0.0001). On the survey, phlebotomists had the best score (89% correct), followed by nurses (76%) and residents and medical students (64%). These data suggest that blood culture protocol knowledge and BCC rates may be related, with phlebotomists scoring highest on the knowledge survey and demonstrating the lowest contamination rates.

Peripherally inserted central venous catheters in the acute care setting: A safe alternative to high-risk short-term central venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) serve as an alternative to short-term central venous catheters (CVCs) for providing intravenous (IV) access in the hospital. It is not clear which device has a lower risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI). We compared CVC- and PICC-related CLABSI rates in the setting of an intervention to remove high-risk CVCs. METHODS: We prospectively followed patients with CVCs in the non-intensive care units (ICUs) and those with PICCs hospital-wide. A team evaluated the need for the CVC and the risk of infection, recommended the discontinuation of unnecessary or high-risk CVCs, and suggested PICC insertion for patients requiring prolonged access. Data on age, gender, type of catheter, duration of catheter utilization, and the development of CLABSIs were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 638 CVCs were placed for 4917 catheter-days, during which 12 patients had a CLABSI, for a rate of 2.4 per 1000 catheter-days. A total of 622 PICCs were placed for 5703 catheter-days, during which 13 patients had a CLABSI, for a rate of 2.3 per 1000 catheter-days. The median time to development of infection was significantly longer in the patients with a PICC (23 vs 13 days; P=.03). CONCLUSION: In the presence of active surveillance and intervention to remove unnecessary or high-risk CVCs, CVCs and PICCs had similar rates of CLABSIs. Given their longer time to the development of infection, PICCs may be a safe alternative for prolonged inpatient IV access.