Survey of physicians' perspectives and knowledge about diagnostic tests for bloodstream infections

PLoS One. 2015 Mar 26;10(3):e0121493. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121493. eCollection 2015.

Abstract

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.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Anti-Infective Agents / therapeutic use
  • Clinical Competence*
  • Diagnostic Tests, Routine*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Physicians*
  • Practice Patterns, Physicians'
  • Sepsis / diagnosis*
  • Sepsis / drug therapy
  • Sepsis / microbiology*
  • Standard of Care
  • Surveys and Questionnaires

Substances

  • Anti-Infective Agents

Grants and funding

nanoMR provided funding to develop the survey and collection of data in non-academic settings. HealthSpring Global Inc. provided support in the form of salaries for author CAP, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.