Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:8789015rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0370003lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0035015lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0040223lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0243161lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1882923lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1548437lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0036245lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205210lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0220812lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1875307lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:dateCreated1996-10-21lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:abstractTextWe have evaluated the yield of several tests and have instituted specimen rejection criteria to reduce costs and save time. For a 12-month period, we recorded the reduction of these tests and calculated the resultant cost and time savings. Seven changes were analyzed: not performing fungal or mycobacterial (acid-fast bacillus) cultures on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens from patients without known immunosuppression when chemistry and cell count are normal; not performing routine stool culture or ovum and parasite examination on specimens from patients in the hospital for > 3 days; not culturing endotracheal suction aspirates when no organisms or > 10 squamous epithelial cells are present; discontinuing broth cultures on all specimens except for tissue, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis fluid, and CSF from patients with shunts; and eliminating bacterial antigen tests. For each test, the number not performed (n), reagent savings, and technologist time saved, respectively, were as follows: CSF fungal culture, 267, $999, and 67 h; CSF acid-fast bacillus culture, 275, $1,662, and 124 h; stool cultures, 320, $2,991, and 98 h; ovum and parasite examinations, 216, $525, and 108 h; endotracheal suction aspirate cultures, 1,505, $4,447, and 306 h; broth cultures, 5,218, $4,931, and 80 h; and bacterial antigen tests, 2,598, $2,293, and 299 h. Overall, 5,181 tests were rejected and 5,218 broth cultures were omitted. Achievable savings were $28,000 in reagent costs and 1,082 h of technologist time. In conclusion, rejecting specimens of proven low yield saves reagent costs and, more importantly, saves technologist time. This time can be spent on specimens having greater diagnostic utility.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:commentsCorrectionshttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:monthFeblld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:issn0095-1137lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MorrisA JAJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:authorpubmed-author:RellerL BLBlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MirrettSSlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SmithL KLKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:volume34lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:pagination355-7lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:dateRevised2009-11-18lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:8789015-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:year1996lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:articleTitleCost and time savings following introduction of rejection criteria for clinical specimens.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:affiliationClinical Microbiology Laboratory, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:8789015pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:8789015lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:8789015lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:8789015lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:8789015lld:pubmed