4.6 Article

Survey of Physicians' Perspectives and Knowledge about Diagnostic Tests for Bloodstream Infections

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121493

关键词

-

资金

  1. nanoMR
  2. HealthSpring Global Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Physicians rely on blood culture to diagnose bloodstream infections (BSI) despite its limitations. As new technologies emerge for rapid BSI diagnosis, optimization of their application to patient care requires an understanding of clinicians' perspectives on BSI diagnosis and how a rapid test would influence medical decisions. Methods We administered a 26-question survey to practitioners in infectious diseases/microbiology, critical care, internal medicine, and hematology/oncology services in USA and Germany about current standards in diagnosing and treating BSI and a hypothetical rapid BSI test. Results Responses from 242 providers had roughly equal representation across specialties. For suspected BSI patients, 78% of practitioners would administer empiric broad spectrum antibiotics although they estimated, on average, that 31% of patients received incorrect antibiotics while awaiting blood culture results. The ability of blood culture to rule in or rule out infection was very/extremely acceptable in 67% and 36%, respectively. Given rapid test results, 60-87% of practitioners would narrow the spectrum of antimicrobial therapy depending on the microorganism detected, with significantly higher percentages when resistance determinants were also tested. Over half of respondents felt a rapid test would be very/extremely influential on clinical practice. Conclusions Limitations of blood culture were perceived as a barrier to patient care. A rapid test to diagnose BSI would impact clinical practice, but the extent of impact may be limited by prevailing attitudes and practices. Opportunities exist for interventions to influence practitioners' behaviors in BSI management particularly with emergence of newer diagnostic tests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据