Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Febrile urinary tract infections (fUTIs), which include pyelonephritis, prostatitis, and urosepsis, are the most common cause of sepsis. However, the treatment has become more complex because of the worldwide increase in antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The objective of this study was to clarify whether point-of-care Gram stain (PCGS) of urine contributed to fUTI diagnosis and treatment in adults. Methods This hospital-based observational study was undertaken between January 2013 and March 2015 in Okinawa, Japan. All enrolled patients were adults who had been admitted to the Division of Infectious Diseases with suspected fUTI. The usefulness of PCGS results were compared for urinalysis (U/A) and urine cultures (U/Cs). The targeted therapy type and its susceptibility based on PCGS were analyzed, and each was investigated in two groups: the uncomplicated pyelonephritis group and the complicated pyelonephritis/prostatitis group. Results Two hundred and sixty-six patients were enrolled. The results of PCGS were closely correlated with those of U/A for pyuria and bacteriuria, and moderately correlated with the results of U/C for bacterial types. In the uncomplicated group, narrow-spectrum antimicrobials such as cefotiam were initially selected in 97.9% (47/48) of patients, and their susceptibility was 97.9% (47/48). In the complicated group, the susceptibility was 84.2% (186/221) ( p  = 0.009) despite frequent AMRs (14.7%; 32/218) and low use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials such as carbapenems (7.7%; 17/221). Conclusion Urine PCGS led to a more precise fUTI diagnosis and prompted clinicians to select narrower-spectrum antibiotics with high susceptibility.

Background Gram stain of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is widely used in the diagnosis of acute meningitis, however, it is often conducted in the laboratory, as only some hospitals have access to point-of-care Gram stain (PCGS). The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the clinical impact and utility of PCGS in diagnosing and treating both bacterial and aseptic meningitis in adults. Methods This was a hospital-based, retrospective observational study at a referral center in Okinawa, Japan. We reviewed the records of all patients aged 15 years or older who were admitted to the Division of Infectious Diseases between 1995 and 2015 and finally diagnosed with bacterial (n = 34) or aseptic meningitis (n = 97). For bacterial meningitis, we compared the treatments that were actually selected based on PCGS with simulated treatments that would have been based on the Japanese guidelines. For aseptic meningitis, we compared the rates of antibiotic use between real cases where PCGS was available and real cases where it was not. Results PCGS was the most precise predictor for differentiating between bacterial and aseptic meningitis (sensitivity 91.2%, specificity 98.9%), being superior in this regard to medical histories, vital signs and physical examinations, and laboratory data available in the emergency room (ER). In bacterial meningitis, PCGS reduced the frequency of meropenem use (1/34 = 3.0%) compared with simulated cases in which PCGS was not available (19/34 = 55.9%) ( p < 0.001). In aseptic meningitis cases, the rate of antibiotic administration was lower when PCGS was used (38/97 = 39.2%) than when it was not (45/74 = 60.8%) ( p  = 0.006). Conclusions PCGS of CSF distinguishes between bacterial and aseptic meningitis more accurately than other predictors available in the ER. Patients with bacterial meningitis are more likely to receive narrower-spectrum antimicrobials when PCGS is used than when it is not. PCGS of CSF thus can potentially suppress the empiric use of antimicrobials for aseptic meningitis.

Background/Objectives: Gram staining is an essential diagnostic technique used for the rapid identification of bacterial and fungal infections, playing a pivotal role in clinical decision-making, especially in point-of-care (POC) settings. Manual staining, while effective, is labor-intensive and prone to variability, relying heavily on the skill of laboratory personnel. Current automated Gram-staining systems are primarily designed for high-throughput laboratory environments, limiting their feasibility in decentralized healthcare settings such as emergency departments and rural clinics. This study aims to introduce and evaluate the Point-of-Care Gram Stainer (PoCGS®), a compact, automated device engineered for single-slide processing, addressing challenges related to portability, standardization, and efficiency in POC applications. Methods: The PoCGS® device was developed to emulate expert manual staining techniques through features such as methanol fixation and programmable reagent application. A comparative evaluation was performed using 40 urine samples, which included both clinical and artificial specimens. These samples were processed using PoCGS®, manual staining by skilled experts, and manual staining by unskilled personnel. The outcomes were assessed based on microbial identification concordance, the staining uniformity, presence of artifacts, and agreement with the culture results. Statistical analyses, including agreement rates and quality scoring, were conducted to compare the performance of PoCGS® against manual staining methods. Results: PoCGS® achieved a 100% concordance rate with expert manual staining in terms of microbial identification, confirming its diagnostic accuracy. However, staining quality parameters such as the uniformity and presence of artifacts showed statistically significant differences when compared to skilled and unskilled personnel. Despite these limitations, PoCGS® demonstrated a comparable performance regarding artifact reduction and agreement with the culture results, indicating its potential utility in POC environments. Challenges such as fixed processing times and limited adaptability to varying specimen characteristics were identified as areas for further improvement. Conclusions: The study findings suggest that PoCGS® is a reliable and valuable tool for microbial identification in POC settings, with a performance comparable to skilled manual staining. Its compact design, automation, and ease of use make it particularly beneficial for resource-limited environments. Although improvements in staining uniformity and background clarity are required, PoCGS® has the potential to standardize Gram staining protocols and improve diagnostic turnaround times. Future developments will focus on optimizing staining parameters and expanding its application to other clinical sample types, ensuring robustness and broader usability in diverse healthcare settings.

Abstract Background The diagnostic utility of point-of-care (POC) Gram stains for obstructive pyelonephritis with hydronephrosis is not well established. The current study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of urine Gram stains in patients with obstructive pyelonephritis due to ureteral stones. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients with obstructive pyelonephritis admitted to our hospital between January 2011 and December 2021. The diagnostic accuracy of Gram stains was evaluated based on the severity of hydronephrosis, including Gram stains performed by both trained physicians and microbiological technicians. Results After analyzing 210 patients, POC Gram stains of bladder urine presented a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 86.8%, 81.8%, 93.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, for gram-negative rods and 65.7%, 83.4%, 48.9%, and 91.0%, respectively, for gram-positive cocci. The agreement between POC Gram stains and urine culture was good for gram-negative rods, with a kappa (κ) coefficient of 0.637 and agreement rate of 85.6%, and moderate for gram-positive cocci, with a κ coefficient of 0.435 and agreement rate of 80%. The agreement between POC Gram stains and bladder urine culture results for gram-negative rods was higher in the mild hydronephrosis group (κ coefficient = 0.677) than in the severe hydronephrosis group (κ coefficient = 0.466). Discrepancies in Gram stain results between physicians and technicians were observed in 21 of 180 cases (11.7%). Conclusions POC Gram stains for gram-negative rods may be a useful diagnostic tool for obstructive pyelonephritis, particularly in cases of mild hydronephrosis.

The emergence of multidrug‐resistant organisms poses a significant threat to global public health, making the optimization of antimicrobial use crucial. Antimicrobial therapy is often initiated in emergency rooms (ERs) and intensive care units (ICUs), where patients are at high risk of infection. Prompt antimicrobial selection is essential in these facilities, and point‐of‐care testing can guide the appropriate initial antimicrobial therapy. Gram staining, a quick and inexpensive method, was previously used for point‐of‐care testing by physicians in the 1980s but was discontinued in 1988 in the United States. However, in Japan, the clinical practice of Gram stain‐based antimicrobial therapy by physicians has continued in a limited number of hospitals. Several studies undertaken in Japan have shown that Gram staining carried out by trained physicians can reduce the overuse of broad‐spectrum antimicrobial agents in ERs and ICUs without worsening patients' outcomes. Gram stain‐based antimicrobial therapy reduced unnecessary use of carbapenems in the ER. Furthermore, Gram staining has been shown to significantly reduce the overuse of broad‐spectrum antimicrobials without worsening clinical cure and mortality for patients with ventilator‐associated pneumonia in the ICU. The classic technique of Gram staining has regained its usefulness through persistent clinical practice in Japan. It is hoped that Japanese researchers in this field will demonstrate to the world the efficacy of the classic technique of Gram staining in addressing this critical problem. Gram staining carried out by trained physicians could serve as a valuable means of optimizing antimicrobial treatment in ERs and ICUs. The classic technique of Gram staining has regained its usefulness through persistent clinical practice in Japan. Gram staining conducted by trained physicians could serve as a valuable means of optimizing antimicrobial treatment in ERs and ICUs.

Background Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for reproductive health conditions have existed for decades. Newer POCTs for syphilis, HIV and trichomonas are currently available and easy to use. We surveyed practicing obstetricians and gynaecologists to determine current POCT use and perceived obstacles to use. Between June and August 2016, 1000 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were randomly selected and invited to complete a Qualtrics (222 West river Park Drive, Provo, Utah 84604, USA) survey; 600 of these were members of the Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network. Respondents who completed at least 60% of the survey were included in the analysis. Of the 1000 selected members, 749 had valid emails and 288 (38%) of these participated in and completed the survey. Of the respondents, 70% were male with a mean of 18 years in practice. Detection of sexually transmissible infections (STIs) once or twice a week was reported by 30%, whereas 45% reported detecting STIs once or twice a month. POCTs used included pregnancy tests (83%), urine dipstick (83%), wet mount tests (79%) and the vagina pH test (54.8%). Few used Gram stain (5%) and stat rapid plasma regain tests (4%). Relatively newer US Food and Drug Administration-approved POCTs were used less frequently, with 25% of respondents reporting using the Affirm VPIII (Becton, Dickinson and Company, 1 Becton Drive, Franklin Lakes, NJ 07471, USA) test use and only 10% using a rapid HIV test. The most common perceived barriers to testing were the amount of reimbursement received for performing the test (61.9%) and the payment coverage from the patient (61.3%). US obstetricians and gynaecologists rely on laboratory test results and traditional POCTs to diagnosis STIs. Future development and marketing of POCTs should consider not only ease and time of test performance, but also the cost of the tests to the practice and the patient, as well as reimbursement.

17.1 Introduction 17.2 Microscopy 17.3 Microscopy in a POC Laboratory 17.4 Gram Staining 17.5 Ziehl‐Neelsen Stain (ZN) for Mycobacterium Tuberculosis 17.6 Blood Film Preparation, Staining and Reporting 17.6.1 Manual Preparation of a Blood Film 17.6.2 Staining of the Blood Film 17.6.3 Alternative Diff‐Quick Method 17.7 Conclusions