Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology

Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology / 1996 / Article

Original Article | Open Access

Volume 7 |Article ID 619596 | https://doi.org/10.1155/1996/619596

Harold Richardson, Christine A Fleming, Andrew MR Mackenzie, The Microbiology Committee, "Diversity of Urine Bacteriology Practice in Ontario: An External Quality Assessment", Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, vol. 7, Article ID 619596, 4 pages, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1155/1996/619596

Diversity of Urine Bacteriology Practice in Ontario: An External Quality Assessment

Received14 Dec 1995
Accepted08 Mar 1996

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of urine bacteriology practice in Ontario regarding appropriateness of quantification and the accuracy and Système International d’Unités (SI) conformity in the reporting of results.DESIGN AND SETTING: A simulated urine specimen with Escherichia coli at a target of 100×10 colony forming units (CFU)/L was submitted to licensed Ontario bacteriology laboratories. Data on the isolation and quantification of the pathogen were required within a stipulated time. Reference values were determined by consensus agreement of the findings of seven designated laboratories.PARTICIPANTS: The challenge was administered to 182 Ontario laboratories licensed to perform urine bacteriological assessment. There was no stratification by type or complexity of facility.MAIN OUTCOMES: Samples were processed by routine procedures. Date and time of receipt of the sample, date tested, bacterial count, associated quantification units and the method used were the data required. A copy of the report using the laboratory’s normal reporting format to user-physicians was requested.RESULTS: The organism was isolated and correctly identified by 179 laboratories. Only 58% of laboratories reported a count of 100×103 CFU/L or more, with 42% reporting a count of between 10 and 100×103 CFU/L. The majority used a standard 0.001 mL loop method. Only 87 participants reported using the correct notation of SI units, although a further 65 reported as CFU/L.CONCLUSION: The variety of reporting formats is of concern. Processing and reporting should be standardized. Laboratories should provide an explanatory note or interpretation when nomenclature or format of a report is changed.

Copyright © 1996 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views90
Downloads350
Citations

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.