ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Quality improvement project to improve blood culture volumes in haematology patients.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis resulting from bloodstream infection is a medical emergency, especially in immunocompromised haematology patients. Identification of causative pathogens through blood cultures is crucial for delivering effective antibiotics promptly.Adequate blood culture volumes (BCV) are crucial for detecting bloodstream infections. Guidelines recommend 8-10 mL per blood culture bottle, yet achieving these volumes remains challenging. In our haematology wards, baseline mean BCV was suboptimal at 4.5 mL. This quality improvement project aimed to optimise BCVs to recommended levels within 6 months at a Singapore tertiary hospital's Department of Haematology.We implemented a multistakeholder quality improvement across three haematology wards from January 2023 to January 2025. Three Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were executed from July 2024: (1) staff education and stakeholder engagement, (2) equipment and process enhancement and (3) validation of BCV measurements through comparison of an automated BCV measurement system (BD EpiCenter BACTEC Microbiology Data Management System) against manual bottle weighing.Postintervention data demonstrated clear statistical signals of improvements in BCV through both EpiCenter automated system and manual bottle weighing. Manual validation in selected wards demonstrated achievement of target volumes. Importantly, this validation process revealed potential limitations of automated measurement systems in our specialised clinical setting. Overall, our results demonstrate that a well-coordinated, multidisciplinary approach combining staff education and engagement, improved equipment and BCV measurement process can successfully achieve recommended BCV in our complex haematology settings.
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.