Suppr超能文献

CD4+ T细胞检测实践对培训的启示

CD4+ T-cell testing practices as implications for training.

作者信息

Rosner E, Willis V, Lambert R, Latzanich G, Ponsell P

机构信息

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Practice Program Office, Division of Laboratory Systems, Chamblee, Georgia 30341, USA.

出版信息

Cytometry. 1997 Aug 15;30(4):181-5.

PMID:9298836
Abstract

As new diseases and new testing methods emerge, clinical laboratories are faced with updating the skills of their personnel. Complex techniques, such as flow cytometry, require both education and experience to achieve a high level of proficiency. One of the ways to determine areas in which training is needed is to assess laboratory practices and compare them with practices recommended in guidelines or by panels of experts. In this paper we describe practices reported in a written survey of 206 laboratories that perform CD4+ T-cell counts (CD4). We provided a list of alternate practices for each of the key steps in the testing process and asked participants to select the practices they use in their laboratories. Published guidelines and interviews with knowledgeable "key informants" and focus groups of people who perform CD4 testing were used to formulate the questions. We interpreted variations from recommended practices as indicators of training needs. Other factors that can affect performance, such as workload, supervision, and resources, were satisfactory to the respondents. A response rate of 73% (247 of 337 laboratories) revealed that laboratories followed most of the recommended practices. Notable exceptions included some areas of quality control and quality assurance and safety. This paper also describes flow cytometry testing as it was practiced in 1993 shortly after release of some of the testing guidelines and provides a baseline of practices for that time frame.

摘要

随着新疾病和新检测方法的出现,临床实验室面临着提升其工作人员技能的问题。诸如流式细胞术等复杂技术,需要教育和经验才能达到高水平的熟练程度。确定需要培训领域的方法之一是评估实验室操作,并将其与指南或专家小组推荐的操作进行比较。在本文中,我们描述了对206个进行CD4 + T细胞计数(CD4)的实验室进行书面调查所报告的操作情况。我们为检测过程中的每个关键步骤提供了一系列替代操作,并要求参与者选择他们实验室所采用的操作。已发布的指南以及对知识渊博的“关键信息提供者”和进行CD4检测的人员焦点小组的访谈被用于制定问题。我们将与推荐操作的差异解释为培训需求的指标。其他可能影响性能的因素,如工作量、监督和资源,受访者表示令人满意。73%(337个实验室中的247个)的回复率表明,实验室遵循了大多数推荐操作。显著的例外包括质量控制、质量保证和安全的一些领域。本文还描述了在一些检测指南发布后不久的1993年所实施的流式细胞术检测,并提供了该时间段的操作基线。

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