This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

II. Urine, Respiratory, Wound, and Cervicovaginal Exudate

Raymond C. Bartlett, MD

JAMA. 1982;247(9):1336-1338.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

IN PART I of this series, attention was drawn to the pitfalls physicians may encounter in the submission of specimens that are commonly contaminated with indigenous and colonizing bacteria. These pitfalls apply especially to specimens from the respiratory tract, superficial wounds, draining lesions, and the female genital tract. It is difficut to obtain material from the site of presumptive infection without contaminating it with the bacteria that are present on skin or mucous membranes. Not only are urine and sputum specimens often collected by the patient, but the specimens often are not seen by either nurses or physicians to assess evidence of gross contamination. However, criteria can be applied to the examination of these specimens in the laboratory to establish the probability that any bacteria that may be isolated will more likely reflect contamination than infection.¹ In such cases, microbiologists should request collection of another specimen, emphasizing special effort . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Division of Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Conn.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to the Division of Microbiology, Department of Pathology, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour St, Hartford, CT 06115 (Dr Bartlett).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?