Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of housestaff physicians’ preparation and interpretation of sputum gram stains for communityacquired pneumonia

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective:To evaluate the preparation and interpretation of sputum Gram stains by housestaff physicians in the assessment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Design:A prospective, multicenter study.

Setting:Two university-affiliated hospitals in Pittsburgh.

Patients:Ninety-nine cases of clinically and radiographically established pneumonia occurring in 97 patients.

Diagnostic test assessment:Housestaff and microbiology personnel prepared a Gram stain for each case of pneumonia. Housestaff assessed the presence and identity of a predominant microbial organism on the slides they prepared. Two senior staff microbiologists, blinded to patient and preparer, evaluated all slides for preparation, sputum purulence, and identification of the predominant organism. Two reference standards were used to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of housestaff’s Gram-stain interpretations: 1) senior staff microbiologists’ determinations of the microbes present using the slides without benefit of culture results, and 2) the etiologic agent derived from results of sputum culture, blood culture, or serology.

Measurements and main results:Housestaff physicians completed a Gram stain in 58% of the pneumonia episodes. Gram stains were not made in 42% of cases, primarily because patients were unable to produce sputum. Fifteen percent of housestaff’s smears were judged inadequately prepared, compared with 3% for the laboratory personnel (p<0.01). Housestaff obtained purulent sputum samples significantly more often than did nursing personnel (58% versus 38%; p<0.01). Housestaff’s Gram stains were 90% sensitive for detecting pneumococcus, with a 50% falsepositive rate. The sensitivity of the Gram stain was less for identification of Haemophilus influenzaethan for identification of Streptococcus pneumoniae.A single antimicrobial agent was chosen as initial therapy for 50% of the patients in whom housestaff identified a predominant organism, compared with 30% in whom a predominant organism was not identified (p≤0.05).

Conclusions:Although housestaff obtained purulent sputum samples more frequently than did nursing personnel, they made systematic errors in the preparation and interpretation of Gram-stained slides. Housestaff physicians should receive formal training in the preparation and interpretation of Gram stains; the specific defects elucidated in this study warrant special attention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hirschmann JV, Murray JF. Pneumonia and lung abscess. In: Braunwald E, Isselbacher KJ, Petersdorf RG, Wilson JD, Martin JB, Fauci AS, eds. Harrison’sPrinciples of Internal Medicine (eleventh edition). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987;1075–82.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Donowitz GR, Mandell GL. Acute pneumonia. In: Mandell GL, Douglas GR, Bennet JE, eds.Principles and practices of infectious diseases. New York: Churchill-Livingstone; 1990:540–54.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Toews GB. Approach to the patient with suspected pneumonia. In: Kelly WM, Devita VT, Dupont HL, et al., eds.Textbook of internal medicine. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1989;2076–82.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rein MF, Gwaltney JM, O’Brien WM, Jennings RH, Mandell GL. Accuracy of Gram’s stain in identifying pneumococci in sputum. JAMA. 1978;239:2671–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalin M, Lindberg AA, Tunevall G. Etiologic diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia by Gram stain and quantitative culture of expectorates. Scand J Infect Dis. 1983;15:153–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gleckman R, Devita J, Hibert D, Pelletier C, Martin R. Sputum Gram stain assessment in community-acquired bacteremic pneumonia. J Clin Microbiol, 1988;26:846–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Thorsteinsson SB, Musher DM, Fagan. The diagnostic value of sputum culture in acute pneumonia. JAMA. 1975;233:894–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Heineman HS, Chawla JK, Lofton WM. Misinformation from sputum cultures without microscopic examination. J Clin Microbiol. 1977;6:518–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Boerner DF, Zwadyk P. The value of sputum Gram’s stain in community-acquired pneumonia. JAMA. 1982;247:642–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Geckler RW, McAllister K, Gremillion DH, Ellenbogen C. Clinical value of paired sputum and transtracheal aspirates in the initial management of pneumonia. Chest. 1985;87:631–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fang GD, Fine MF, Orloff JJ, et al. New and emerging etiologies for community-acquired pneumonia with implications for therapy: a prospective study of 359 cases.Medicine. 1990;69:307–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Murray PR, Washington JA II. Microscopic and bacteriologic analysis of expectorated sputum. Mayo Clin Proc. 1975;50:339–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. The interpretation of diagnostic data. In:Clinical epideiology—a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston: Litle, Brown, 1985;71–3.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kuzma JW. The chi-square test. In:Basic statistics for the health sciences. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1984;141–55.

    Google Scholar 

  15. In-patient utilization of short stay hospitals by diagnosis. United States 1983. Annual Summary National Center for Health Statistics, USDHHS, Gwalltney J, O’Brien WM, Jennings RH, Mandell GL. Data from the National Health Survey, Series 13, No. 72 (DHA publication no. PHS-83-1733) Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.

  16. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Tugwell P. Making a prognosis. In:Clinical epidemiology—a basic science for clinical medicine. Boston: Little, Brown, 1985:159–70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Perlino CH. Laboratory diagnosis of pneumonia due toStreptococcus pneuoniae. J Infect Dis. 1985;150:139–44.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Geckler RW, Gremillion DH, McAllister CK, Ellenbogen C. Microscopic and bacteriologic comparison of paired sputa and transtracheal aspirates. J Clin Microbiol. 1977;6:396–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Drew WL. Value of sputum culture in diagnosis of pneumonococcal pneumonia. J Clin Microbiol. 1977;6:62–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Guckian JC, Christensen WD. Quantitative culture and Gram sain of sputum in pneumonia. Am Rev Resp Dis. 1978;118:997–1005.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Barrett-Conner E. The nonvalue of sputum culture in the diagnosis of bacteria pneumonia. Am Rev Resp Dis. 1971;103:845–8.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rathburn HK, Govani L. Mouse inoculation as a means of identifying pneumococci in the sputum. Johns Hopkins Med J. 1967;120:46–8.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shinwarie MN. The comparative value of sputum and blood cultures in the diagnosis of acute bacerial pneumonia. J Indiana State Med Assoc. 1987;139–41.

  24. Lentino JR, Lucks DA. The nonvalue of sputum culture in the management of lower respiratory tract infections. J Clin Microbiol. 1987;25:758–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. LaForce FM. Community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections—prevention and cost-control strategies. Am J Med. 1985;78(suppl B):52–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Room 167 Lothrop Hall, 190 Lothrop Street, 15261, Pittsburgh, PA

    Michael J. Fine MD, MSc

Authors
  1. Michael J. Fine MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John J. Orloff MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John D. Rihs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard M. Vickers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Spyros Kominos ScD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wishwa N. Kapoor MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vincent C. Arena PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Victor L. Yu MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Received from the Divisions of General Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh and VA Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fine, M.J., Orloff, J.J., Rihs, J.D. et al. Evaluation of housestaff physicians’ preparation and interpretation of sputum gram stains for communityacquired pneumonia. J Gen Intern Med 6, 189–198 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02598958

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02598958

Key words

Search

Navigation