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

Rosemary C She, Sally Alrabaa, Seung Heon Lee, Meghan Norvell, Andrew Wilson and Cathy A Petti

PLOS ONE, 2015, vol. 10, issue 3, 1-11

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.

Date: 2015
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121493 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 21493&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0121493

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121493

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().