Letter to the Editor regarding “blood culture bottle shortage mitigation efforts: analysis of impact on ordering and patient impact” by Doern et al
Anuschka Y. van der Zaag, Amber G. den Hollander, Sheena C. Bhagirath, Prabath W.B. Nanayakkara

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHealthcare cost, quality, practices · Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control · Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Dear Editor,
We read with great interest the article entitled “Blood culture bottle shortage mitigation efforts: analysis of impact on ordering and patient impact” by Doern et al.^ 1 ^ We fully share the authors` view that excessive blood culture collection can be reduced through decision support without negatively impacting patient care. We also commend the authors’ for their swift and effective strategy to reduce the number of blood culture analyses in times of blood culture bottle shortage.
However, we find the conclusion that the measures implemented by Doern et al have not adversely affected patient care to be premature. Firstly, no patient outcomes were measured beyond blood culture positivity. While an increasing positivity rate may indicate a reduction in unnecessary or negative cultures, it remains unclear whether this increase is proportionate or appropriate. Crucial outcomes such as repeat emergency department visits, delayed or ineffective antibiotic treatment, and mortality were not assessed. Assessing these outcomes is essential to ensure patient safety.^ 2 ^ Second, the number of single-set blood culture orders did increase during the period of resource constraints. As the authors note, this was an unintended effect of the interventions. Although they plan to address this through ongoing education, it remains unclear whether this shift in ordering practice may have had a negative impact on patient care.
We do acknowledge that evaluating such outcomes within a limited timeframe is very challenging and recognize that prompt action was necessary. However, we recommend that these outcomes be considered in future research. To ensure that patient safety is not compromised by decision support tools it is essential to include outcome measures relevant to its clinical context.^ 2–4 ^ Future research should therefore include these outcome measures, ideally within a randomized controlled setting to minimize potential bias. Our research team has developed and extensively validated a machine learning based prediction model to estimate the likelihood of positive blood cultures in the emergency department.^ 5–7 ^ This model is currently being evaluated in a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial to ensure effectiveness and safety.^ 8 ^ We strongly believe that studies of this kind are absolutely necessary before implementing similar decision support tools in patient care.
Diagnostic stewardship, especially in the context of material shortage, is an important research area. However, more extensive evaluation of decision support tools is imperative before conclusions about their effect on patient safety.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Doern CD , Whitman M , Doll M et al. Blood culture bottle shortage mitigation efforts: analysis of impact on ordering and patient impact. Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2025;5(1):e 6.39810856 10.1017/ash.2024.474PMC 11729487 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2Fabre V , Davis A , Diekema DJ et al. Principles of diagnostic stewardship: a practical guide from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Diagnostic Stewardship Task Force. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023;44(2):178–85.36786646 10.1017/ice.2023.5 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Schinas G , Dimopoulos G , Akinosoglou K. Understanding and implementing diagnostic stewardship: a guide for resident physicians in the era of antimicrobial resistance. Microorganisms. 2023;11(9).10.3390/microorganisms 11092214 PMC 1053771137764058 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Boerman AW , Schinkel M , Meijerink L et al. Using machine learning to predict blood culture outcomes in the emergency department: a single-centre, retrospective, observational study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e 053332.10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053332 PMC 872845634983764 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5Schinkel M , Boerman AW , Bennis FC et al. Diagnostic stewardship for blood cultures in the emergency department: a multicenter validation and prospective evaluation of a machine learning prediction tool. E Bio Medicine. 2022;82:104176.35853298 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104176 PMC 9294655 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 6Schinkel M , Boerman AW , Paranjape K et al. Detecting changes in the performance of a clinical machine learning tool over time. E Bio Medicine. 2023;97:104823.37793210 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104823 PMC 10550508 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 7van der Zaag AY , Bhagirath SC , Boerman AW et al. Appropriate use of blood cultures in the emergency department through machine learning (ABC): study protocol for a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. BMJ Open. 2024;14(5):e 084053.10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084053 PMC 1114915338821574 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
