Home Print this page Email this page
Users Online: 1396
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 164-169

Effectiveness of direct interaction and communication with patients, as one preanalytic parameter on reduction of urine culture contamination rate

1 Department of Microbiology, ESI-PGIMSR and ESIC Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
3 Department of Community Medicine, Medical College Kolkata, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:
Roumi Ghosh
Department of Microbiology, ESI-PGIMSR and ESIC Medical College, Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata - 700 104, West Bengal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijhas.IJHAS_107_19

Rights and Permissions

BACKGROUND: Urine culture contamination is the result of mixing commensal flora of the lower urinary tract during the collection of midstream urine. As patients themselves collect urine sample, urine culture analysis depends on their collection method, which is an important preanalytical issue. OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted in the Department of Microbiology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research and SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, during the month of May and June 2016, with aim to assess the role of communication and verbal instructions explaining “Midstream clean-catch (MSCC) technique” before collection of urine to the adult female outpatients on urine “Culture Contamination Rate” (CCR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-six female patients were assigned in one of the two groups: “I” (Instructed) group (n = 196) and “N” (Nothing) group (n = 200). Verbal instructions in local (Bengali) language only provided to the Group “I”. Urine samples were processed in the laboratory. Laboratory technicians and microbiologists were blinded about the groups. Urine culture results were collected from laboratory records. RESULTS: The CCR in the Group I and Group N was 6.1% and 19.5%, respectively (P < 0.001). Positive culture was observed in 31.6% (62/196) in Group I and 24.0% (48/200) in Group N, which was comparable statistically (P = 0.09). Instruction and communication have been found to be more effective at reduction of urine culture contamination among patients of the age group of 21–30 years (P < 0.001) and lower socioeconomic class (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CCR was significantly lower in the group who were provided verbal instruction for MSCC. Thus, proper collection technique may reduce the need of the repeat sample due to contamination and prevent from the unnecessary antibiotic treatment.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded181    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal