Amirahmadi, Fazlollaah

Context.— Autopsy rates have decreased dramatically despite providing important clinical information to medical practices and social benefits to decedents' families. Objective.— To assess the impact of an institutional Office of Decedent Affairs (ODA), a direct communication link between pathology and decedents' families, on hospital autopsy consent rates, autopsy-related communication, practitioner views, and next-of-kin experiences. Design.— A before and after study involving all hospital decedents whose deaths did not fall within the jurisdiction of the medical examiner's office from 2013 to 2018. A pathology-run ODA launched in May 2016 to guide next-of-kin through the hospital death process (including autopsy-related decisions) and serve as the next-of-kin's contact for any subsequent autopsy-related communication. Critical care and hematology/oncology practitioners were assessed for their autopsy-related views and decedents' next-of-kin were assessed for their autopsy-related experiences. Autopsy consent rates for non–medical examiner hospital deaths, autopsy-related communication rates, practitioner views on the role and value of autopsy, and next-of-kin autopsy experiences and decisions factors were compared prior to and after ODA launch. Results.— Autopsy consent rates significantly increased from 13.2% to 17.3% (480 of 3647 deaths versus 544 of 3148 deaths; P < .001). There were significant increases in the rate of autopsy-related discussions and bereavement counseling provided to decedents' families. Practitioner views on the positive role of autopsy for any hospital death and those with advanced stage cancer also significantly increased. Next-of-kin indicated more consistent autopsy-related discussions with the potential benefits of autopsy discussed becoming key decision factors. Conclusions.— An ODA improves hospital autopsy consent rates, autopsy-related communication, providers' autopsy-related views, and next-of-kins autopsy experiences.

ABSTRACT Culture of periprosthetic tissue specimens in blood culture bottles is more sensitive than conventional techniques, but the impact on laboratory workflow has yet to be addressed. Herein, we examined the impact of culture of periprosthetic tissues in blood culture bottles on laboratory workflow and cost. The workflow was process mapped, decision tree models were constructed using probabilities of positive and negative cultures drawn from our published study (T. N. Peel, B. L. Dylla, J. G. Hughes, D. T. Lynch, K. E. Greenwood-Quaintance, A. C. Cheng, J. N. Mandrekar, and R. Patel, mBio 7:e01776-15, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01776-15 ), and the processing times and resource costs from the laboratory staff time viewpoint were used to compare periprosthetic tissues culture processes using conventional techniques with culture in blood culture bottles. Sensitivity analysis was performed using various rates of positive cultures. Annualized labor savings were estimated based on salary costs from the U.S. Labor Bureau for Laboratory staff. The model demonstrated a 60.1% reduction in mean total staff time with the adoption of tissue inoculation into blood culture bottles compared to conventional techniques (mean ± standard deviation, 30.7 ± 27.6 versus 77.0 ± 35.3 h per month, respectively; P < 0.001). The estimated annualized labor cost savings of culture using blood culture bottles was $10,876.83 (±$337.16). Sensitivity analysis was performed using various rates of culture positivity (5 to 50%). Culture in blood culture bottles was cost-effective, based on the estimated labor cost savings of $2,132.71 for each percent increase in test accuracy. In conclusion, culture of periprosthetic tissue in blood culture bottles is not only more accurate than but is also cost-saving compared to conventional culture methods.