It was reported that upon initial test of the (b)(6) an identification of leminerolla sp 93.14% was obtained.Upon notification from (b)(6) of the incorrect result, 4-panels were set up, obtaining an identification of leminorella sp.93.14% on two panels, and shigella sp.99.30% on the other two panels.The customer indicated that biochemical and minimum inhibitory concentration (mic) panel qc were within specification before and after the reported misidentification.The correct identification of the isolate was shigella boydii per 2015 (b)(6) bacteriology participant summary report.There was no patient involved as this was a proficiency survey.
|
The manufacturer participated in the same proficiency survey using (b)(6).When tested on conventional overnight panels and read on the wa instrument, an id of leminorella sp.93.14% was attained.When the same panel was read on the autoscan-4 (as-4) instrument, an id of shigella sp.99.30% was attained.The difference between the two reads was the cf8 (cephalothin 8 (ug/ml) well; the cf8 well was negative on the wa and positive on the as-4.It was noted that the cf8 well was a weak positive when visually verified.The results from the cf8 panel along with the panel results from the other biochemicals/antimicrobics are used to generate the biotype number for the organism tested and the corresponding identification.An id of shigella was also attained on two additional tests using rapid negative panels.Also, the sample was tested on an analytical profile index (api) strip as a reference test method and a low probability id of shigella sp.Was attained.It is possible that emerging resistance with this organism may be contributing to the identification discrepancy.Please refer to medwatch report number 2919016-2015-00045 for report of a similar event.(b)(4).
|