\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Comparison of the Contamination Rate and Risk Factor Profile of Blood Culture Done in Emergency Department and MHDU/MICUs},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2021 2021-07-15 (revised: 8 Year 2021 15 July 2021)}
\def\TheID{10.34257/MRCVOL21IS2PG1\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2021 2021-07-15}
\title{Comparison of the Contamination Rate and Risk Factor Profile of Blood Culture Done in Emergency Department and MHDU/MICUs}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dr. Pranav Kumar, Mandeep Joshi, Shreya Verma, Shoily Nath, Shilpi Pawar, Arpan Roy  Dutta}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 14 June 2021 Accepted: 1 July 2021 Published: 15 July 2021}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Material and Methods: This is a two months' prospective observational study comparing blood culture contamination rate and risk factors associated with contamination between ED and MICU/MHDU. A total of 998 patients were included in the study who underwent blood culture in ED and MICU/MHDU. 570 in ED and 428 in MICU/MHDU were included after meeting exclusion and inclusion criteria.Results: Blood culture growths were higher in ED (19%). Most common growth was CoNS (4%). The overall contamination rate in this study was (4.8%) The contamination rate was lower in ED (4.4%) when compared to MICU/MHDU (5.4%).

\end{abstract}


\keywords{blood culture; medical intensive care unit (MICU); medical high dependency unit (MHDU); emergency departments (EDs).}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\begin{textblock*}{10cm}(1.05cm,3cm)
{{\textit{CrossRef DOI of original article:}} \underline{10.34257/MRCVOL21IS2PG1}}
\end{textblock*}\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
s a way of identifying the organisms in the bloodstream, blood culture is a valuable method for health care practitioners. Blood cultures are an important investigation to help effective management for patients with severe infection/sepsis. A positive blood culture may indicate a conclusive diagnosis, allowing the individual organism to be targeted for therapy. However, false-positive results because of contamination can limit the utility of this important tool \hyperref[b0]{1} . Owing to contamination, which happens when species that are not naturally present in a blood sample are grown in culture, false positives arise. For decades, contaminated cultures have been described as a\par
Author ?: e-mail: pankajmbbsru@gmail.com problematic problem and continue to be a source of irritation for both clinical and laboratory workers. Clinicians must assess if the organism represents a clinically relevant infection associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality or a false-positive result without any clinical effects in the face of a positive blood culture outcome. Contaminated samples increase the workload of the laboratory and can interrupt patient management or cause incorrect changes. This can prolong hospitalization of patients, increase the risk of harm, and increase health boards' costs. Current guidelines advocate a contamination rate of 2-3\% is acceptable \hyperref[b1]{2} . Emergency departments (EDs) are important locations for the diagnosis and management of bacteraemia \hyperref[b2]{3} . Blood cultures are considered the "gold standard" for the diagnosis of bacteraemia. Emergency departments are networks that are especially vulnerable to a heavy burden of infected blood cultures due to the high turnover of workers, the need to collect cultures before resuscitation of critically ill patients, and the time pressure to acquire cultures before the first dose of antibiotics \hyperref[b3]{4} . This study is to compare the contamination rate and risk factors of blood culture done in the emergency department and MICU/MHDU. The mean age of population in the ED culture arm was 51 years and in the MICU/MHDU was 46 years. There is male predominance in both the arms. The total males accounted to 61\% and the females accounted to 39\%.  
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Materials and Methods}]{Materials and Methods} 
\section[{Study design:}]{Study design:} 
\section[{b) Admission Diagnosis}]{b) Admission Diagnosis}\par
Lung infection/Lung pathology is the most common admission diagnosis encountered in the study comprising of 193 cases (19.3\%). However, in ED the most common admission diagnosis was AUFI comprising of 23\% of total ED cases. There are no cardiac diseases in ED. Others includes neuroleptic malignant syndrome, Diphtheria infection, G6PD deficiency, post renal transplant, nephrotic syndrome, polymyositis, Liver Abscess, cardiac pathology, acute abdomen, toxicology, autoimmune diseases.  The mean value of total leucocyte counts in ED arm is higher than that of MICU/MHDU. The mean serum albumin levels were lower in MICU/MHDU arm than ED arm. Hypoalbuminemia is observed in patients with positive culture growth in MICU/MHDU. The mean Hb levels were also lower in MICU/MHDU than ED arm. The most common site of poke for culture in ED is brachial 81\% followed by dorsum of hand 14\%. There was no arterial line in ED. The most common site of poke for culture in MICU/MHDU is Central line (35\%) followed by Arterial line (33\%). There was no EJV line in MICU/MHDU. Total contamination was 48. Most common contaminant was CoNS (10 cases). NF-GNB as contaminant were found 1 in each department. Total True contaminants were reported (20 cases) out of which 14 were in ED and 6 were in MICU/MHDU. The most common site of poke for contamination in ED was from the femoral (22.2\%) and the least common site of contamination was dorsum of hand (1.28\%). In MICU/MHDU, the most common site of contamination is from the Brachial (6.20\%) and the least common is from the arterial line (4.16\%). Arterial line blood culture sample was not done in Ed. No femoral and Dorsum of hand blood culture sample was taken in MICU/MHDU. 
\section[{Table 10: Procedure related characteristics}]{Table 10: Procedure related characteristics}\par
In our observation study it was found that there was no scrubbing of hand before the procedure in ED whereas scrub hand was found in 62\% cases in MICU/MHDU. The gloves were worn in unsterile manner in 9 out of 100 cases of ED and overcrowding during venipuncture was found in 35 cases. The antiseptic used in ED was chlorhexidine (20\% cases) and betadine (80\%). The antiseptic used in MICU/MHDU was chlorhexidine in all the cases (100\%). In ED, the antiseptic was allowed to dry in 32 cases only. The set used for blood culture was blood culture set (77\%) and dressing set (20\%) in ED. The blood culture set was used in 51\% cases of MICU/MHDU and other sets in 49\% cases. In ED, the volume collected was 5cc in 35\% cases and 10 cc were collected in 64 \% of cases. In MICU/MHDU, 10cc volume was collected in 98\% of cases and in 2\% cases < 5 cc was collected. In ED 95\% of cases, were collected by EMT, 17 by interns and 10 by registrars. Where as in MICU/MHDU most of the cultures were taken by registrars (89\%). In MICU/MHDU, 382 by registrar and 46 by interns. The blood culture was done in first attempt in 91\% of cases of ED and 92\% cases of MICU/MHDU. The blood culture procedure variables done in ED were not significant with contamination (p value >0.05).  The blood culture procedure variables were not significant with contamination (p value >0.05).\par
IV. 
\section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par
This was a prospective study comparing the contamination rate and risk factor profile of blood culture done in the Emergency Department and MHDU/MICUs. The analysis contained a total of 998 cases. Out of which 570 were from ED and 428 were from MICU/MHDU. This first Indian studies looking at the rates of BCC in ED and MICU/MHDU to the best of our knowledge.\par
The mean age in our study in ED is 51.3 years and MICU/MDHU is 46.4 years. A similar study by Choi et al had shown a mean age of 67 years in ED and 65years in general ward \hyperref[b4]{5} . As life expectancy in India is less when compared to Singapore, the mean age in our study is less than the study done by Choi et al at Singapore \hyperref[b4]{5} .\par
Our study shows a slight male predominance which is in contrast to Choi et al study where there is female predominance \hyperref[b4]{5} . This might be because of the high female sex ratio (1:1.04) in Singapore when compared to India \hyperref[b5]{6} .\par
The most common comorbidity in our study is diabetes accounting for 339(34\%) of cases. Choi et al also showed diabetes as the most common comorbidity accounting for 163/400(40.8\%) cases \hyperref[b4]{5} . There is a positive association of diabetes with culture growth in our study and study by Lee et al. \hyperref[b6]{7} . The mean hemoglobin in this study in ED was 11.82mg/dl which is almost equivalent to the mean hemoglobin in Choi et al study which was 12.2 mg/dl \hyperref[b4]{5} . The mean total leucocyte counts in ED were higher (14.7 x109/L) when compared to Choi et al study (11.6x109/L) as most of our cases presented with high fever \hyperref[b4]{5} .\par
The mean serum albumin in our study is 3.4 gm/dl which is slightly lower than Choi et al study which was 3.6gm/dl \hyperref[b4]{5} . The total rate of contamination in our study done in ED and MICU/MHDU was 4.8\%. In this study, the rate of contamination is lower in ED (4.4\%) when compared to MICU/MHDU (5.4\%).\par
A Similar study done by Choi et al showed blood culture contamination rates were higher in ED comprising 4\% when compared to general wards (0.5\%) \hyperref[b4]{5} . In a study by Ramirez et al showed a blood culture contamination rate in ICU decreased from 23\% to 13 \% by using an education-based intervention \hyperref[b7]{8} .\par
Raja et al studied 11000 patients over 2 years period showed that the contamination rates were higher in ICU (31\%) when compared to ED (20\%) \hyperref[b8]{9} . The Bentley et al study also found that BCC rates were higher in ED (4.74 percent), which they were able to reduce to 2 percent within a year with a simple and clear checklist and rationalizing equipment to help and not detract from this approach with a specifically specified preferred technique 2 . Self WH et al in their study was able to reduce the BCC rates from 4.3\% to 1.7\% by following a standardized, sterile process for culture collection using chlorhexidine skin antisepsis, sterile gloves, sterile drapes, and checklists \hyperref[b9]{10} .\par
In our study, the growth is seen in 191/998 (19.1\%) cases. Of which growth in ED is 108 (18.9\%) and in MICU/MHDU is 83(19.4\%). A higher percentage of growth in ED may be because of more number of patients in this arm. A study done by Choi et al also had near similar growth in ED (17.5 \%) \hyperref[b4]{5} . A similar study done in ICU by Ramirez et al showed a culture growth of 31\% (12). The most common contaminant found during this study was CoNS which was similar to most of the studies \hyperref[b6]{7,}\hyperref[b8]{9} .\par
The blood culture procedure variables were not significant with contamination (p-value >0.05). But according to the study by Lee et al in Taiwan, there was a strong correlation between blood culture contamination rates and the degrees of ED crowding (P.001) \hyperref[b6]{7,}\hyperref[b10]{11} .\par
A study done by Kim et al on blood culture contamination stated that the contamination rate was 0.5\% in routine sterile gloving and 0.9\% in optional sterile gloving with a significant P-value. Wearing a sterile glove in an aseptic manner before venepuncture may reduce blood culture contamination \hyperref[b11]{12} . Various studies on the BCC rate among different antiseptics showed no significant difference among the antiseptics used \hyperref[b12]{13} . Weinstein at el. study suggests that iodine tincture and chlorhexidine tincture are equivalent antiseptic agents for skin antisepsis in patients who require blood cultures \hyperref[b13]{14}  they can also cause true bloodstream infections. Due to its clinical effects, this distinction is of practical significance because it can avoid the unfair use of antibiotics and the development of antimicrobial resistance. More importantly, the inability to ascertain and treat true bacteremia can prove costly to the patient, more so if the patient is critically ill or immunocompromised. A clue to the significance of CoNS-positive blood cultures is the number of positive cultures, thus more the number of positive cultures, the higher the chances of it being true bacteremia. However, this is not feasible if before beginning the patient on antimicrobial agents, only a single culture sample is collected. Quantitative blood cultures (QBCs) can aid interpretation. QBCs are cumbersome and not very feasible. On the other hand, the time-to-positivity (TTP) of blood cultures after loading in the automated systems like BacT/ Alert may be a useful surrogate test for bacterial density and interpretation of the significance of CoNS isolated from positive blood cultures \hyperref[b14]{15} .\par
V. 
\section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par
Blood culture contamination is a common clinical problem and often leads to both adverse impacts on health care and costs. We identified a low contamination rate among blood cultures collected in the adult ED at our hospital 4.4\% when compared to MICU/MHDU (5.4\%). We researched the process of blood culture collection and found inconsistent methods for culture collection with recurrent breaches in aseptic technique in ED. As we know ED frequently experiences high patient volumes and crowding and that leads to making things do as soon as possible and in that way, many lapses in protocol happen and that leads to degraded performance of blood cultures, both increasing the rate of contamination and decreasing the diagnostic yield.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Study setting:\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4666083916083916\textwidth}P{0.1268065268065268\textwidth}P{0.13076923076923078\textwidth}P{0.1258158508158508\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep ED (n=570)\tabcellsep MICU/MHDU (n=428)\tabcellsep Total (n= 998)\\
Comorbidities\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Diabetes\tabcellsep 209(36.7)\tabcellsep 130(30.4)\tabcellsep 339(34)\\
Hypertension\tabcellsep 186(32.6)\tabcellsep 133(31.1)\tabcellsep 319(32)\\
Cancer\tabcellsep 55(9.6)\tabcellsep 9(2.1)\tabcellsep 64(6.4)\\
CKD\tabcellsep 34(6.0)\tabcellsep 63(14.7)\tabcellsep 97(9.7)\\
CLD\tabcellsep 24 (4.2)\tabcellsep 8(1.9)\tabcellsep 32(3.2)\\
HIV\tabcellsep 9(1.6)\tabcellsep 2(0.5)\tabcellsep 11(1.1)\\
Admission diagnosis\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
AUFI\tabcellsep 133(23.3)\tabcellsep 19(4.4)\tabcellsep 152(15.2)\\
Lung infection/Pathology\tabcellsep 100 (17.5)\tabcellsep 93( 21.7)\tabcellsep 193(19.3)\\
Soft tissue infection\tabcellsep 81(14.2)\tabcellsep 1 (0.2)\tabcellsep 82 (8.2)\\
Urogenital infection\tabcellsep 64(11.2)\tabcellsep 11 (2.6)\tabcellsep 75(7.5)\\
Hepatobiliary pathology\tabcellsep 37(6.5)\tabcellsep 35(8.2)\tabcellsep 72 (7.2)\\
Haematological conditions\tabcellsep 23(4.0)\tabcellsep 60(14.)\tabcellsep 83(8.3)\\
Oncopathology\tabcellsep 24(4.2)\tabcellsep 8 (1.9)\tabcellsep 32 (3.2)\\
Sepsis and septic shock\tabcellsep 17 (3.0)\tabcellsep 60 (14.0)\tabcellsep 77(7.7)\\
Others\tabcellsep 91(15.9)\tabcellsep 141(32.94)\tabcellsep 182(182)\\
a) Comorbidities\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{The most common comorbidity in this study}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{was diabetes comprising 36\% in ED and 30\% in}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{MICU/MHDU. The second most common comorbidity}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{was hypertension comprising 32\% in ED and 31\% in}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{MICU/MHDU. The number of patients with CKD were}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: more in MICU/MHDU accounting 14\%. A total of 11 HIV cases were included in this study of which 9(1.6) in ED and 2 in MICU/MHDU.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.34298245614035083\textwidth}P{0.22368421052631576\textwidth}P{0.2833333333333333\textwidth}}
Site of Poke\tabcellsep ED (n=570)\tabcellsep MICU/MHDU (n=998)\\
Brachial\tabcellsep 465(81)\tabcellsep 129(30.1)\\
Femoral\tabcellsep 18(3.2)\tabcellsep 1(0.2)\\
Dorsum of hand\tabcellsep 78(13.7)\tabcellsep 1(0.2)\\
Central line\tabcellsep 7(1.2)\tabcellsep 153(35.7)\\
Arterial line\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 144(33.6)\\
EJV\tabcellsep 2(0.4)\tabcellsep 0\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.42170542635658914\textwidth}P{0.05403100775193798\textwidth}P{0.3175968992248062\textwidth}P{0.056666666666666664\textwidth}}
Culture Growth\tabcellsep ED(n=570)\tabcellsep MICU/MHDU (n= 428)\tabcellsep Total (998)\\
No growth\tabcellsep 462(81.1)\tabcellsep 345(80.6)\tabcellsep 807(80.9)\\
Growth\tabcellsep 108 (18.9)\tabcellsep 83 (19.4)\tabcellsep 191(19.1)\\
True Pathogen\tabcellsep 83(14.6)\tabcellsep 60(14)\tabcellsep 143(14.3)\\
No of Contaminants\tabcellsep 25\tabcellsep 23\tabcellsep 48\\
Contamination rate\tabcellsep 4.4\tabcellsep 5.4\tabcellsep 4.8\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Out of 998 cases, 807(81\%) showed no growth}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{lower in ED (4.4\%) when compared to MICU/MHDU}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{of which 462 cases are in ED and 345 cases were in}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{(5.4\%). The total rate of contamination is 4.8\%. Out of}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{MICU/MHDU. A total of 48 cases (4.8) were}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{998 cases, 191(19\%) showed culture growth of which}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{contaminated in the study out of which 25 cases were in}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{108 cases are in ED and 83 were in MICU.}\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{ED and 23 in MICU/MHDU. The rate of contamination is}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3131578947368421\textwidth}P{0.18342105263157896\textwidth}P{0.15881578947368422\textwidth}P{0.19460526315789473\textwidth}}
Culture growth\tabcellsep ED (n=570)\tabcellsep MICU/MHDU (n=428)\tabcellsep Total (n=998)\\
No growth\tabcellsep 462(81.1)\tabcellsep 345(80.6)\tabcellsep 807(80.9)\\
E.coli\tabcellsep 20(3.5)\tabcellsep 8(1.90)\tabcellsep 28(2.80)\\
Staph aureus\tabcellsep 9(1.60)\tabcellsep 4(0.90)\tabcellsep 13(1.30)\\
Gram negative bacilli\tabcellsep 2(0.40)\tabcellsep 1(0.20)\tabcellsep 3(0.30)\\
Pseudomonas\tabcellsep 4(0.70)\tabcellsep 3(0.70)\tabcellsep 7(0.70)\\
Stept. Pneumoniae\tabcellsep 6(1.10)\tabcellsep 2(0.50)\tabcellsep 8(0.80)\\
Proteus\tabcellsep 1(0.20)\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep 1(0.10)\\
Candida\tabcellsep 1(0.20)\tabcellsep 1(0.20)\tabcellsep 2(0.20)\\
Salmonella typhi\tabcellsep 1(0.20)\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep 1(0.10)\\
Enterobacter species\tabcellsep 2(0.40)\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep 2(0.20)\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3445945945945946\textwidth}P{0.13209459459459458\textwidth}P{0.1722972972972973\textwidth}P{0.20101351351351351\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep ED N=25\tabcellsep MICU N=23\tabcellsep TOTAL N=48\\
CoNS(As Contaminants)\tabcellsep 10(40)\tabcellsep 16(69.5)\tabcellsep 26(54.20)\\
NF-GNB(As Contaminants)\tabcellsep 1(4)\tabcellsep 1(4.3)\tabcellsep 2(4.20)\\
True Contaminant\tabcellsep 14(56)\tabcellsep 6(26.2)\tabcellsep 20(41.60)\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.35038167938931297\textwidth}P{0.09083969465648854\textwidth}P{0.06704834605597965\textwidth}P{0.24440203562340967\textwidth}P{0.025954198473282442\textwidth}P{0.03244274809160305\textwidth}P{0.038931297709923665\textwidth}}
Department\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Contaminants}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep P Value\tabcellsep Odds Ratio\tabcellsep 95\% CI\\
\tabcellsep YES (N=48)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{NO (N=950)}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
ED\tabcellsep 25(52.1\%)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{545(57.4\%)}\tabcellsep 0.470\tabcellsep 0.808\tabcellsep 0.452-1.444\\
MICU/MHDU\tabcellsep 23(47.9\%)\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{405(42.6\%}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{A total of 48 cases were contaminated in the}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{our study there was no significant difference found in}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{study. IN ED 25 cases were have contamination. In}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{contamination rate between culture done in ED and}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{MICU/MHDU 23 cases were having contamination. In}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{MICU/MHDU.}\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3319526627218935\textwidth}P{0.26656804733727807\textwidth}P{0.2514792899408284\textwidth}}
Site of Poke\tabcellsep ED\tabcellsep MICU/MHDU\\
Brachial\tabcellsep 19/465(4.08\%)\tabcellsep 8/129(6.20\%)\\
Femoral\tabcellsep 4/18(22.2\%)\tabcellsep 0\\
Dorsum of hand\tabcellsep 1/78(1.28\%)\tabcellsep 0\\
Central line\tabcellsep 1/7(14.28\%)\tabcellsep 9/153(5.88\%)\\
Arterial line\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 6/144(4.16\%)\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 9 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{11} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.159375\textwidth}P{0.044270833333333336\textwidth}P{0.3143229166666667\textwidth}P{0.14609375\textwidth}P{0.07526041666666666\textwidth}P{0.06197916666666667\textwidth}P{0.04869791666666666\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{(A): Procedure variables in ED}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Procedure variable}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{ED contaminants (n=100)}\tabcellsep P value\tabcellsep Odds ratio\tabcellsep 95\% CI\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Yes (n=5)\tabcellsep No (n=95)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Mask\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 81\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep --\tabcellsep --\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 100\%\tabcellsep 85.3\%\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Yes\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 14.7\%\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Sterile manner\tabcellsep No\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 1.000\tabcellsep --\tabcellsep --\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 9.5\%\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Yes\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 86\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 11}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{12} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
Year 2021\\
6\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_10}Table 12 (}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{12} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_11}Table 12 (}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.06699507389162561\textwidth}P{0.06699507389162561\textwidth}P{0.14445812807881772\textwidth}P{0.18004926108374383\textwidth}P{0.11724137931034483\textwidth}P{0.04187192118226601\textwidth}P{0.23238916256157635\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Procedure variable}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{MICU/MHDU (n=428) Yes (n=23) No (n=405)}\tabcellsep P value\tabcellsep Odds ratio\tabcellsep 95\% CI\\
Set Used\tabcellsep Others\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 192\tabcellsep 0.756\tabcellsep 1.125\tabcellsep 0.535-2.367\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 58.1\%\tabcellsep 55.2\%\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Blood culture set\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 156\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 41.9\%\tabcellsep 44.8\%\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
volume\tabcellsep <=5cc\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 0.367\tabcellsep 2.584\tabcellsep 0.304-21.94\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 4.3\%\tabcellsep 1.7\%\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep >5cc\tabcellsep 22\tabcellsep 398\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 95.7\%\tabcellsep 98.3\%\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Year 2021\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 7\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Volume XXI Issue II Version I\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep D D D D )\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep (\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Medical Research\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Global Journal of\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{In our study CoNS are commonly isolated}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{contaminants (26 cases) from blood cultures, however,}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_12}}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Kassis et al.]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{},  		 			C Kassis 		,  		 			G Rangaraj 		,  		 			Y Jiang 		,  		 			R Y Hachem 		,  		 			I Raad 		.  		 	 
\bibitem[Bentley et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘A change of culture: reducing blood culture contamination rates in an Emergency Department’.  		 			J Bentley 		,  		 			S Thakore 		,  		 			L Muir 		,  		 			A Baird 		,  		 			J Lee 		.  	 	 		\textit{BMJ Qual Improv Rep}  		2016. 5  (1) .  	 
\bibitem[Ramirez et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘American Journal of Infection Control Blood culture contamination rate in an intensive care setting: Effectiveness of an education-based intervention’.  		 			P Ramirez 		,  		 			M Gordón 		,  		 			C Cortes 		,  		 			E Villarreal 		,  		 			C Perezbelles 		,  		 			C Robles 		.  	 	 		\textit{Am J Infect Control}  		2015. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Choi et al. (2019)]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Appropriateness of blood culture: A comparison of practices between the emergency department and general wards’.  		 			Ec-E Choi 		,  		 			Y H Chia 		,  		 			Y Q Koh 		,  		 			Czq Lim 		,  		 			J C Lim 		,  		 			Sbs Ooi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Infect Dis Health}  		2019 Feb. 24  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Raja and Neill (2017)]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Blood culture contamination rates in two district general hospitals in the Southeast of England’.  		 			N Raja 		,  		 			O Neill 		,  		 			B 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Patient Saf Infect Control}  		2017 Jan 1. 5 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Story-Roller and Weinstein ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Chlorhexidine versus Tincture of Iodine for Reduction of Blood Culture Contamination Rates: a Prospective Randomized Crossover Study’.  		 			E Story-Roller 		,  		 			M P Weinstein 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Clin Microbiol}  		2016. 54  (12)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Alahmadi et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Clinical and economic impact of contaminated blood cultures within the hospital setting’.  		 			Y M Alahmadi 		,  		 			M A Aldeyab 		,  		 			J C Mcelnay 		,  		 			M G Scott 		,  		 			Fwd Elhajji 		,  		 			F A Magee 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Hosp Infect}  		2011. 77  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Effect of Routine Sterile Gloving on Contamination Rates in Blood Culture A Cluster Randomized Trial | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians (2019)]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{Effect of Routine Sterile Gloving on Contamination Rates in Blood Culture A Cluster Randomized Trial | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians},  		 \url{https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/746768/effect-routine-sterilegloving-contamination-rates-blood-culture-cluster-randomized}  		2019 Jun 7.  	 	 (Internet) 
\bibitem[Trzeciak and Rivers (2003)]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Emergency department overcrowding in the United States: an emerging threat to patient safety and public health’.  		 			S Trzeciak 		,  		 			E P Rivers 		.  	 	 		\textit{Emerg Med J EMJ}  		2003 Sep. 20  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Self et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Reducing Blood Culture Contamination in the Emergency Department: An Interrupted Time Series Quality Improvement Study’.  		 			W H Self 		,  		 			T Speroff 		,  		 			C G Grijalva 		,  		 			C D Mcnaughton 		,  		 			J Ashburn 		,  		 			D Liu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Acad Emerg Med}  		2013. 20  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Madeo et al. (2005)]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Simple measures to reduce the rate of contamination of blood cultures in Accident and Emergency’.  		 			M Madeo 		,  		 			T Jackson 		,  		 			C Williams 		.  	 	 		\textit{Emerg Med J}  		2005 Nov 1. 22  (11)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Singapore's Demographic: Sex Ratio -Males to Females | Ministry of Social and Family Development (2019)]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{Singapore's Demographic: Sex Ratio -Males to Females | Ministry of Social and Family Development},  		2019 Jun 22.  	 	 (Internet) 
\bibitem[Liu et al. (2016)]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Skin antiseptics in venous puncture site disinfection for preventing blood culture contamination: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials’.  		 			W Liu 		,  		 			Y Duan 		,  		 			W Cui 		,  		 			L Li 		,  		 			X Wang 		,  		 			H Dai 		.  	 	 		\textit{Int J Nurs Stud}  		2016 Jul. 59 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lee et al. (2012)]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘The impact of overcrowding on the bacterial contamination of blood cultures in the ED’.  		 			C-C Lee 		,  		 			N-Y Lee 		,  		 			M-C Chuang 		,  		 			P-L Chen 		,  		 			C-M Chang 		,  		 			W-C Ko 		.  	 	 		\textit{Am J Emerg Med}  		2012 Jul. 30  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hall and Lyman (2006)]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Updated Review of Blood Culture Contamination’.  		 			K K Hall 		,  		 			J A Lyman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Clin Microbiol Rev}  		2006 Oct 1. 19  (4)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
