Question 1

A technologist recognises the name on a wound swab requisition as a neighbour. The culture grows meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. That evening the neighbour's spouse telephones the laboratory and asks what the swab grew. What should the technologist do?

Accepted Answer

Decline and direct the caller to the ordering physician — The result is identifiable health information, and a spouse is not automatically an authorised recipient — consent to disclose does not transfer between household members. The technologist's role stops at stating that results are not released by telephone and directing the caller to the practitioner who ordered the swab. Releasing anything, even confirming that a swab exists, is a privacy breach, and the pre-existing personal relationship makes it harder to defend, not easier.

Question 2

A technologist is signed in to the laboratory information system at a specimen receiving terminal that is visible from the outpatient corridor. A patient record is open on screen when she is called away to answer a stat page. What is the correct action before she leaves the terminal?

Accepted Answer

Lock the terminal so the open record leaves the screen — An unattended session in a public-facing area exposes every record the signed-in account can reach, and anything done under that account remains attributable to the technologist. Locking returns the workstation to a sign-in prompt, which clears the display and closes the audit trail cleanly. It takes a single keystroke and is the only action that removes the exposure rather than relying on screen position or another person's attention.

Question 3

An outpatient hands in a sputum container at the collection centre for acid-fast bacilli testing. The container holds roughly 1 mL of thin clear fluid, and the patient says he was told simply to spit into the jar. What is the most appropriate response?

Accepted Answer

Coach the patient on deep-cough technique and recollect — Salivary specimens have a poor yield for mycobacteria, so a negative result on saliva cannot be interpreted and processing it consumes reagents while risking a falsely reassuring report. The misunderstanding is correctable at the counter: rinse the mouth with water, take two or three deep breaths, then cough from the chest into the container. Recollecting while the patient is still present is faster than issuing a rejection notice and keeps him engaged in his own care.

Question 4

A patient returns to the outpatient collection centre because her urine culture must be repeated. The first specimen was reported as mixed skin flora. She asks the technologist what she should do differently this time. What is the best response?

Accepted Answer

Review the clean-catch steps and supply a printed sheet — Mixed skin flora points at collection technique rather than at the patient's clinical condition, and correcting technique sits squarely within the technologist's scope. Walking through cleansing, discarding the first portion of the stream, and catching the middle portion — reinforced with written instructions she can take into the washroom — is what makes the repeat specimen interpretable. It also avoids offering any interpretation of the first culture, which belongs to the ordering practitioner.

Professionalism

Safeguarding identifiable patient information

Working with the patient at the point of collection