» Articles » PMID: 26888900

Multicenter Assessment of Gram Stain Error Rates

Overview
Specialty Microbiology
Date 2016 Feb 19
PMID 26888900
Citations 32
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Gram stains remain the cornerstone of diagnostic testing in the microbiology laboratory for the guidance of empirical treatment prior to availability of culture results. Incorrectly interpreted Gram stains may adversely impact patient care, and yet there are no comprehensive studies that have evaluated the reliability of the technique and there are no established standards for performance. In this study, clinical microbiology laboratories at four major tertiary medical care centers evaluated Gram stain error rates across all nonblood specimen types by using standardized criteria. The study focused on several factors that primarily contribute to errors in the process, including poor specimen quality, smear preparation, and interpretation of the smears. The number of specimens during the evaluation period ranged from 976 to 1,864 specimens per site, and there were a total of 6,115 specimens. Gram stain results were discrepant from culture for 5% of all specimens. Fifty-eight percent of discrepant results were specimens with no organisms reported on Gram stain but significant growth on culture, while 42% of discrepant results had reported organisms on Gram stain that were not recovered in culture. Upon review of available slides, 24% (63/263) of discrepant results were due to reader error, which varied significantly based on site (9% to 45%). The Gram stain error rate also varied between sites, ranging from 0.4% to 2.7%. The data demonstrate a significant variability between laboratories in Gram stain performance and affirm the need for ongoing quality assessment by laboratories. Standardized monitoring of Gram stains is an essential quality control tool for laboratories and is necessary for the establishment of a quality benchmark across laboratories.

Citing Articles

A novel framework for the automated characterization of Gram-stained blood culture slides using a large-scale vision transformer.

McMahon J, Tomita N, Tatishev E, Workman A, Costales C, Banaei N J Clin Microbiol. 2025; 63(3):e0151424.

PMID: 39992156 PMC: 11898657. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.01514-24.


Determining causal pathogens and inflammatory state of mastitis in dairy cows via Gram staining of precipitates in milk.

Suzuki N, Isobe N Front Vet Sci. 2025; 11():1492564.

PMID: 39872610 PMC: 11770005. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1492564.


Virtual Gram staining of label-free bacteria using dark-field microscopy and deep learning.

Isil C, Koydemir H, Eryilmaz M, de Haan K, Pillar N, Mentesoglu K Sci Adv. 2025; 11(2):eads2757.

PMID: 39772690 PMC: 11803577. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.ads2757.


Wash-Free Bacterial Gram-Typing and Photodynamic Inactivation with Long-Chain-Tailed BODIPY Derivatives.

Ji Y, Li J, Chen C, Piao C, Zhou X, Yoon J Biomater Res. 2024; 28:0069.

PMID: 39228999 PMC: 11370751. DOI: 10.34133/bmr.0069.


Improvement of gram staining effect by ethanol pretreatment and quantization of staining image by unsupervised machine learning.

Guo X, Che W Arch Microbiol. 2024; 206(7):318.

PMID: 38904719 DOI: 10.1007/s00203-024-04045-w.


References
1.
James J . A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf. 2013; 9(3):122-8. DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182948a69. View

2.
Zarbo R, Meier F, Raab S . Error detection in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005; 129(10):1237-45. DOI: 10.5858/2005-129-1237-EDIAP. View

3.
Rand K, Tillan M . Errors in interpretation of Gram stains from positive blood cultures. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 126(5):686-90. DOI: 10.1309/V4KE2FPM5T8V4552. View

4.
Samuel L, Novak-Weekley S . The role of the clinical laboratory in the future of health care: lean microbiology. J Clin Microbiol. 2014; 52(6):1812-7. PMC: 4042802. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00099-14. View

5.
Uehara Y, Yagoshi M, Tanimichi Y, Yamada H, Shimoguchi K, Yamamoto S . Impact of reporting gram stain results from blood culture bottles on the selection of antimicrobial agents. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009; 132(1):18-25. DOI: 10.1309/AJCP0H2DAMBXZUSS. View