Provider views on rapid diagnostic tests and antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods study

PLoS One. 2021 Nov 29;16(11):e0260598. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260598. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Background: Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are often inappropriately treated with antibiotics. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed with the aim of improving antibiotic prescribing but uptake remains low. The aim of this study was to examine provider knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding RDT use and their relationship to antibiotic prescribing decisions across multiple clinical departments in an urban safety-net hospital.

Methods: We conducted a mixed methods sequential explanatory study. Providers with prescribing authority (attending physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) who had at least 20 RTI encounters from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018. Eighty-five providers completed surveys and 16 participated in interviews. We conducted electronic surveys via RedCap from April to July 2019, followed by semi-structured individual interviews from October to December 2019, to ascertain knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to RDT use and antibiotic prescribing.

Results: Survey findings indicated that providers felt knowledgeable about antibiotic prescribing guidelines. They reported high familiarity with the rapid streptococcus and rapid influenza tests. Familiarity with comprehensive respiratory panel PCR (RPP-respiratory panel PCR) and procalcitonin differed by clinical department. Qualitative interviews identified four main themes: providers trust their clinical judgment more than rapid test results; patient-provider relationships play an important role in prescribing decisions; there is patient demand for antibiotics and providers employ different strategies to address the demand and providers do not believe RDTs are implemented with sufficient education or evidence for clinical practice.

Conclusion: Prescribers are knowledgeable about prescribing guidelines but often rely on clinical judgement to make final decisions. The utility of RDTs is specific to the type of RDT and the clinical department. Given the low familiarity and clinical utility of RPP and procalcitonin, providers may require additional education and these tests may need to be implemented differently based on clinical department.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / therapeutic use*
  • Diagnostic Tests, Routine* / economics
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Inappropriate Prescribing
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Nurse Practitioners
  • Physician Assistants
  • Physicians
  • Respiratory Tract Infections / diagnosis*
  • Respiratory Tract Infections / drug therapy*
  • Time Factors

Substances

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Boston University Social Innovation on Drug Resistance (SIDR) Postdoctoral Program. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [SB], 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.