• Johannes B J Scholte, Walther N K A van Mook, Catharina F M Linssen, Helke A van Dessel, Dennis C J J Bergmans, Paul H M Savelkoul, and Paul M H J Roekaerts.
• Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: janscholte@hotmail.com.
• J Crit Care. 2014 Oct 1;29(5):885.e7-12.

PurposeTo explore the extent of surveillance culture (SC) implementation underlying motives for obtaining SC and decision making based on the results.Materials And MethodsA questionnaire was distributed to Heads of Department (HODs) and microbiologists within all intensive care departments in the Netherlands.ResultsResponse was provided by 75 (79%) of 95 HODs and 38 (64%) of 59 laboratories allied to an intensive care unit (ICU). Surveillance cultures were routinely obtained according to 55 (73%) of 75 HODs and 33 (87%) of 38 microbiologists. Surveillance cultures were obtained in more than 80% of higher-level ICUs and in 58% of lower-level ICUs (P < .05). Surveillance cultures were obtained twice weekly (88%) and sampled from trachea (87%), pharynx (74%), and rectum (68%). Thirty (58%) of 52 HODs obtained SC to optimize individual patient treatment. On suspicion of infection from an unknown source, microorganisms identified by SC were targeted according to 87%. One third of HODs targeted microorganisms identified by SC in the case of an infection not at the location where the SC was obtained. This was significantly more often than microbiologists in case of no infection (P = .02) or infection of unknown origin (P < .05).ConclusionsSurveillance culture implementation is common in Dutch ICUs to optimize individual patients' treatment. Consensus is lacking on how to deal with SC results when the focus of infection is not at the sampled site.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

22 keywords...

hide…