ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Optimisation of aetiological examination processes for enhanced quality and efficiency in hospitalised patients prior to antimicrobial therapy: a multicentre quasi-experimental study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to optimise the aetiological examination process in hospitalised patients to enhance pathogen detection quality and efficiency. The hypothesis was that process management strategies would improve specimen submission rates, quality, timeliness and antimicrobial use adjustment.
designA multicentre quasi-experimental pre-post comparison design was used, with baseline and postoptimisation phases.
settingTwo hospitals in Guangming District, Shenzhen, China.
participants34 790 inpatients in the baseline and 34 361 in the postoptimisation phase, across all departments.
interventionsImplemented process clarification, standardisation of specimen collection/submission and multidisciplinary collaboration, with comprehensive staff training. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were the pathogen submission rate before antimicrobial therapy. The secondary outcome measure was the adjustment rate of antimicrobial use based on test results, specimen qualification rate and specimen submission time. These measures were evaluated before and after process optimisation.
resultsPostoptimisation, key metrics improved significantly: pathogen submission rate (50.82%-71.77%), specimen qualification rate (90.20%-98.71%), submission time (192-104 min) and antimicrobial adjustment rate (74.11%-93.24%; all p<0.001).
conclusionsProcess management effectively enhanced aetiological examination quality and efficiency, with potential for widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable as this was a quasi-experimental study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.