A Survey of Physicians’ Perceptions of Diagnostic Tests for Clostridioides difficile Infection

Hae-Sun Chung, You Sun Kim, Young-Seok Cho, Jeong Su Park, Bo-Moon Shin
{"title":"A Survey of Physicians’ Perceptions of Diagnostic Tests for Clostridioides difficile Infection","authors":"Hae-Sun Chung, You Sun Kim, Young-Seok Cho, Jeong Su Park, Bo-Moon Shin","doi":"10.5145/acm.2023.26.3.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: This study aimed to investigate perceptions of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) diagnostic tests among physicians who prescribe CDI diagnostic tests as part of providing direct patient care. Methods: In August 2018, we provided a 12-question survey of gastroenterologists (the most common referral source for CDI testing) to 35 medical institutions in Korea, asking them about their perceptions of CDI diagnosis and testing. Results: A comparison of the perceptions of physicians and clinical pathologists (CPs) found that physicians had a lower perceived sensitivity of the toxin AB enzyme immunoassay test. For nucleic acid amplification tests, physicians exhibited a perception of higher assay sensitivity and specificity than CPs. The specificity of culture tests was generally perceived as high by physicians, whereas CPs regarding expressed mixed opinions. All but one physician and one CPs found the algorithmic test useful. Concerning the CDI isolation criteria, physicians commenced patient isolation by concurrently assessing both test results and clinical symptoms, rather than exclusively relying upon test results. Among CPs, 84.6% said they could rely on symptoms to determine when to release a patient from isolation, while 46.2% of physicians said they would rely on test results. Conclusion: This study provides useful information on the status of laboratory diagnosis of CDI in Korea and what needs to be improved, which will help to standardize and improve laboratory diagnosis of CDI in Korea.","PeriodicalId":34065,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5145/acm.2023.26.3.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to investigate perceptions of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) diagnostic tests among physicians who prescribe CDI diagnostic tests as part of providing direct patient care. Methods: In August 2018, we provided a 12-question survey of gastroenterologists (the most common referral source for CDI testing) to 35 medical institutions in Korea, asking them about their perceptions of CDI diagnosis and testing. Results: A comparison of the perceptions of physicians and clinical pathologists (CPs) found that physicians had a lower perceived sensitivity of the toxin AB enzyme immunoassay test. For nucleic acid amplification tests, physicians exhibited a perception of higher assay sensitivity and specificity than CPs. The specificity of culture tests was generally perceived as high by physicians, whereas CPs regarding expressed mixed opinions. All but one physician and one CPs found the algorithmic test useful. Concerning the CDI isolation criteria, physicians commenced patient isolation by concurrently assessing both test results and clinical symptoms, rather than exclusively relying upon test results. Among CPs, 84.6% said they could rely on symptoms to determine when to release a patient from isolation, while 46.2% of physicians said they would rely on test results. Conclusion: This study provides useful information on the status of laboratory diagnosis of CDI in Korea and what needs to be improved, which will help to standardize and improve laboratory diagnosis of CDI in Korea.
医生对艰难梭菌感染诊断试验认知的调查
背景:本研究旨在调查医生对艰难梭菌感染(CDI)诊断测试的看法,这些医生将CDI诊断测试作为提供直接患者护理的一部分。方法:2018年8月,我们对韩国35家医疗机构的胃肠科医生(CDI检测最常见的转诊来源)进行了一项包含12个问题的调查,询问他们对CDI诊断和检测的看法。结果:医生和临床病理学家(CPs)的感知比较发现,医生对毒素AB酶免疫测定试验的感知敏感性较低。对于核酸扩增试验,医生表现出比CPs更高的灵敏度和特异性。医生普遍认为培养测试的特异性较高,而CPs对此表达了不同的意见。除了一名医生和一名CPs外,所有人都认为算法测试有用。关于CDI隔离标准,医生通过同时评估检测结果和临床症状来开始患者隔离,而不是完全依赖检测结果。在CPs中,84.6%的人表示,他们可以依靠症状来决定何时将患者从隔离中释放出来,而46.2%的医生表示,他们将依靠测试结果。结论:本研究提供了韩国CDI实验室诊断的现状和需要改进的地方,有助于规范和提高韩国CDI的实验室诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信