Consumer survey on microbiology reports.

5 typical microbiology reports were circulated to the medical staff of a 900-bed teaching hospital and they were asked for their interpretations. Approximately 160 completed replies were received and it was clear that the reports were often misinterpreted; one report (isolation of a gram-negative rod from sputum) was misinterpreted by four doctors out of five. The reasons for this failure of communication seem to be the use of jargon and unfamiliar names of bacterial species, and use of ill-defined reporting conventions. The omission of a clear-cut conclusion from many reports also contributed to misunderstanding. These deficiencies in reporting practices result in unnecessary antibiotic therapy and unnecessary work for the laboratory, since clinicians are more likely to ask for a repeat of a test with a doubtful interpretation. Communications with clinicians would be more effective if microbiologists ensured that each report is free of jargon, states what conclusion can be drawn from the test, and makes recommendations, where appropriate, for antibiotic therapy.