National prevalence survey in Brazil to evaluate the quality of microbiology laboratories: the importance of defining priorities to allocate limited resources

This report describes a survey of microbiology laboratories (n = 467) serving Brazilian hospitals with ≥10 intensive care beds and/or involved in the government health care adverse event reporting system. Coordinators were interviewed and laboratories classified as follows: Level 0 (no minimal funct...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Revista panamericana de salud pública 2013-01, Vol.33 (1), p.73-78
Hauptverfasser: Costa, Luciano B, Cardoso, Maria Regina Alves, Ferreira, Consuelo G, Levy, Carlos E, Borba, Heder M, Sallas, Janaina, Santana, Heiko T, Lima, Rogério S, Ferraz, Lucia R, Reis, Joana D'Arc P, Santi, Leandro Q, Levin, Anna S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This report describes a survey of microbiology laboratories (n = 467) serving Brazilian hospitals with ≥10 intensive care beds and/or involved in the government health care adverse event reporting system. Coordinators were interviewed and laboratories classified as follows: Level 0 (no minimal functioning conditions-85.4% of laboratories); Level 1 (minimal functioning conditions but inadequate execution of basic routine-6.7%); Level 2 (minimal functioning conditions and adequate execution of basic routine but no adequate procedures for quality control-5.8%); Level 3 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, and adequate procedures for quality control, but no direct communication with the infection control department-0.9%); Level 4 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, and direct communication with infection control, but no available advanced resources-none); and Level 5 (minimal functioning conditions, adequate execution of basic routine, adequate procedures for quality control, direct communication with infection control, and available advanced resources-0.9%). Twelve laboratories did not perform Ziehl-Neelsen staining; 271 did not have safety cabinets; and >30% without safety cabinets had automated systems. Low quality was associated with serving hospitals not participating in government adverse-event program; private hospitals; nonteaching hospitals; and those outside state capitals. Results may reflect what occurs in many other countries where defining priorities is important due to limited resources.
ISSN:1020-4989
1680-5348
1680-5348
DOI:10.1590/S1020-49892013000100010