Suppr超能文献

细胞学处理中的交叉污染:当前实践综述。

Cross-contamination in cytology processing: a review of current practice.

机构信息

Department of Pathology, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.

Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

出版信息

J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2022 Jul-Aug;11(4):194-200. doi: 10.1016/j.jasc.2022.03.002. Epub 2022 Mar 10.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

New cytopreparatory technologies decrease the need for direct smears in favor of an increased use of liquid-based cytology methods. Despite these practice changes, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments continue to require that cytopathology laboratories have procedures to prevent cross-contamination (CC). While the incidence of CC is not well documented, specific cytologic preparations and specimens with a high potential for CC have not been generally defined by professional guidelines or consensus. The American Society of Cytopathology Clinical Practice Committee surveyed cytology practitioners to better understand current practice related to CC in cytology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey focused on four topics: (1) practice settings and demographic data; (2) current practice for meeting CC requirements; (3) practice for rapid on-site evaluation; and (4) preparation types considered high risk for CC. The survey was sent to all American Society of Cytopathology and American Society for Cytotechnology members from July 1 to August 14, 2020.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight percent of laboratories had a written CC policy, with 66.18% of the policies addressing rapid on-site evaluation CC procedures. Documented cases of CC were rare. Alcohol-fixed, direct smears of Pap-stained fluids were deemed the most likely to be impacted by CC. Cell block contamination during the histologic processing were reported by 56.20% of respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in practice has resulted in decreased preparation types associated with a high potential for CC. Laboratories should follow a risk-based approach to define these cases. Knowledge of practice patterns among laboratories can guide the development and refinement of policy and procedures.

摘要

简介

新的细胞制备技术减少了对直接涂片的需求,增加了对液体细胞学方法的使用。尽管实践发生了这些变化,临床实验室改进修正案仍要求细胞病理学实验室有防止交叉污染(CC)的程序。虽然 CC 的发生率没有得到很好的记录,但专业指南或共识尚未普遍定义具有高交叉污染潜力的特定细胞学制剂和标本。美国细胞病理学协会临床实践委员会对细胞学从业者进行了调查,以更好地了解细胞学中 CC 的当前实践情况。

材料和方法

该调查集中在四个主题上:(1)实践环境和人口统计学数据;(2)满足 CC 要求的当前实践;(3)快速现场评估实践;(4)被认为具有高 CC 风险的制剂类型。该调查于 2020 年 7 月 1 日至 8 月 14 日发送给美国细胞病理学协会和美国细胞技术协会的所有成员。

结果

98%的实验室有书面的 CC 政策,其中 66.18%的政策涉及快速现场评估 CC 程序。很少有记录在案的 CC 病例。认为最有可能受到 CC 影响的是酒精固定的巴氏染色液直接涂片。56.20%的受访者报告细胞块在组织学处理过程中受到污染。

结论

实践的变化导致与高交叉污染潜力相关的制剂类型减少。实验室应采用基于风险的方法来定义这些情况。了解实验室的实践模式可以指导政策和程序的制定和完善。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验