Suppr超能文献

医生对血流感染诊断检测的观点与知识调查。

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

作者信息

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

机构信息

Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.

Department of Medicine, Morsani School of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, United States of America.

出版信息

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.

摘要

背景

尽管血培养存在局限性,但医生仍依赖其来诊断血流感染(BSI)。随着用于快速诊断BSI的新技术不断涌现,要将这些技术优化应用于患者护理,就需要了解临床医生对BSI诊断的看法以及快速检测将如何影响医疗决策。

方法

我们针对美国和德国传染病/微生物学、重症监护、内科以及血液学/肿瘤学服务领域的从业者开展了一项包含26个问题的调查,内容涉及当前诊断和治疗BSI的标准以及一种假设的快速BSI检测方法。

结果

242名提供者的回复在各专业中分布大致均衡。对于疑似BSI患者,78%的从业者会给予经验性广谱抗生素治疗,尽管他们估计平均有31%的患者在等待血培养结果期间接受了不恰当的抗生素治疗。血培养用于确诊或排除感染的能力分别在67%和36%的情况下被认为非常/极其可接受。若能获得快速检测结果,60% - 87%的从业者会根据检测到的微生物来缩小抗菌治疗的范围,当同时检测耐药决定因素时,这一比例会显著更高。超过半数的受访者认为快速检测将对临床实践产生非常/极其重大的影响。

结论

血培养的局限性被视为患者护理的障碍。一种用于诊断BSI的快速检测方法将影响临床实践,但其影响程度可能会受到现有态度和做法的限制。特别是随着更新的诊断检测方法的出现,存在干预措施来影响从业者在BSI管理中的行为的机会。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8b94/4374856/cad9df8689bf/pone.0121493.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验