Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To address Gram stain interpretation proficiency in a satellite/centralized microbiology laboratory paradigm, two programs were devised. In quality assurance program 1, nonmicrobiology technologists at satellite laboratories were required to interpret standardized Gram-stained specimens of clinical material prepared by an experienced microbiologist at a central laboratory. In quality assurance program 2, clinical Gram stains prepared and read by the satellite laboratorians were reviewed by experienced microbiologists at the central laboratory. Satisfactory performance (94%) was achieved in quality assurance program 1. In contrast, quality assurance program 2 had a significantly lower overall performance (89%; P < 0.0001) due to poorer identification of host cells (93%) and bacteria (84%). A variety of intervention mechanisms, including continuous monitoring, resulted in overall performance improvement (P < or = 0.006). While a technologist challenge has educational merit, having a microbiologist review previously read slides is a better indicator of the technologist's Gram stain interpretation proficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Munson et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: