{"title":"Redesigning Microbiology Order Architecture to Improve Laboratory Efficiency.","authors":"Justin McCallum, Lance Harlan, Beverley Orr, Karen Krajewski, Eliezer Nussbaum, Sankha Basu, Zoe Freeman Weiss","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfag140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical microbiology culture interpretation depends on accurate specimen context, including specimen type, anatomic source, and collection method. However, electronic ordering systems often permit nonspecific culture orders that do not capture the information needed for appropriate processing, reporting, and result interpretation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a quality improvement intervention at an academic tertiary care center to replace a generic \"aerobic culture\" order with specimen-specific wound, sterile body fluid, and tissue/biopsy culture orders linked to required specimen type and anatomic source fields. Ordering pathways were harmonized across procedural and nonprocedural work flows, and available tests were constrained based on the selected specimen type and source.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Before intervention, 1115 of 2528 eligible culture orders required laboratory cancellation and reordering, compared with 78 of 508 eligible orders after implementation, 44.1% vs 15.4%, risk ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.28-0.43, P < 0.001. Generic aerobic culture ordering declined to zero 5 months after residual ordering pathways were identified and corrected. Remaining errors were largely attributable to retained preference-list orders, previously placed future or standing orders, and gaps in clinician education.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Specimen-specific microbiology order design reduced preanalytical ordering error and laboratory rework. These findings support microbiology order architecture as a practical diagnostic stewardship strategy that can improve specimen-context capture, reduce downstream laboratory correction, and better align culture ordering with laboratory processing requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfag140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Clinical microbiology culture interpretation depends on accurate specimen context, including specimen type, anatomic source, and collection method. However, electronic ordering systems often permit nonspecific culture orders that do not capture the information needed for appropriate processing, reporting, and result interpretation.
Methods: We performed a quality improvement intervention at an academic tertiary care center to replace a generic "aerobic culture" order with specimen-specific wound, sterile body fluid, and tissue/biopsy culture orders linked to required specimen type and anatomic source fields. Ordering pathways were harmonized across procedural and nonprocedural work flows, and available tests were constrained based on the selected specimen type and source.
Results: Before intervention, 1115 of 2528 eligible culture orders required laboratory cancellation and reordering, compared with 78 of 508 eligible orders after implementation, 44.1% vs 15.4%, risk ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.28-0.43, P < 0.001. Generic aerobic culture ordering declined to zero 5 months after residual ordering pathways were identified and corrected. Remaining errors were largely attributable to retained preference-list orders, previously placed future or standing orders, and gaps in clinician education.
Conclusions: Specimen-specific microbiology order design reduced preanalytical ordering error and laboratory rework. These findings support microbiology order architecture as a practical diagnostic stewardship strategy that can improve specimen-context capture, reduce downstream laboratory correction, and better align culture ordering with laboratory processing requirements.
背景:临床微生物培养的解释依赖于准确的标本环境,包括标本类型、解剖来源和采集方法。然而,电子订购系统通常允许非特定的培养顺序,这些顺序不能捕获适当处理、报告和结果解释所需的信息。方法:我们在一家学术三级护理中心进行了质量改进干预,用与所需标本类型和解剖源场相关的标本特异性伤口、无菌体液和组织/活检培养顺序取代了通用的“有氧培养”顺序。排序路径在程序性和非程序性工作流程之间得到协调,可用的测试基于所选择的标本类型和来源进行约束。结果:干预前2528份合格培养订单中有1115份需要实验室取消和重新订购,干预后508份合格培养订单中有78份需要实验室取消和重新订购,风险比为0.35,95% CI 0.28-0.43, P < 0.001。在确定和纠正剩余排序途径后5个月,一般有氧培养的排序下降到零。其余的错误主要归因于保留的偏好列表订单,先前放置的未来或现有订单,以及临床医生教育的差距。结论:标本特异性微生物排序设计减少了分析前排序错误和实验室返工。这些发现支持微生物顺序架构作为一种实用的诊断管理策略,可以改善标本环境捕获,减少下游实验室更正,并更好地使培养顺序与实验室处理要求保持一致。