At my previous job, we plated BAP's along with the LIM broth and never found the
scenario you described. If anything the BAP's missed GBS and the LIM's grew it,
which is what they are for anyway. If a doc ordered a group B screen, the swabs
went directly into LIM. I've never heard of Group D inhibiting GBS. I'll have to
ask our Ph.D. about that one.
We don't look for GC in a genital IF the patient has an LCX probe ordered for
Chlamydia and GC (don't plate TM that is). A full genital culture without an LCX
gets a TM. We look for yeast, Staph. aureus, GC, G. vaginalis, GBS. A pure
culture of enterics gets ID/Sensi, but if there's a mixture, we don't do anything
with it. Hemophilus gets worked up and the doc has to decide, I guess. At my
previous job, only mod. to lg. amt of yeast, Staph. aureus, G.vag. got worked up.
Enterics were reported "lg. amt. GNR, ID if requested" and they NEVER requested
them. It depends on where you work. I work at a hospital based lab now, so
guidelines are a little different.
Speaking of work, I've got to leave NOW. Keep in touch.
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology
WasGross wrote:
> Thank you for your response. I completed training in July, 1975. I worked for
> about 4 months in Hematology and the remaining years in Microbiology. I love
> Microbiology. I find it fascinating. There seems to always be a mystery bug to
> solve.
> I was glad to see you inoculate a BAP with the LIM broth. Have you noticed
> if Enterococci inhibits GBS in LIM Broth? There was poster session at the ASM
> this year about it. Unfortunately, the authors were not there. Our lab has seen
> GBS on original plate and not from LIM at times, though rarely. We often
> wondered why. There are some labs that only inoculate the LIM for GBS. I worry
> that they might miss it.
> What does your lab look for in Genitals specimens, not GBS only? We have
> seen Haemophilus predominating which we report but are not sure what it means.
> Once we had a near pure culture of S.pneumo. What do you do with pure GNR's
> from them?
> Our lab uses Paperless, Cerner. Its okay. I think computer systems are like
> id systems and it becomes what your use to. Same thing with Mac and EMB.
> I do think Microscan is messy. Too much "primordial juice" to toss. But
> they can be read by hand which is nice. Several years ago we used Sensitre.
> Very nice inoculating system but the technical support was lacking for us so we
> went back to Microscan
> Thank you, again for chatting.
> Donna
