Background: We assessed how laboratories use and handle reporting of results of rapid diagnostics performed on positive blood culture broths, with a focus on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) markers.
Methods: A survey assembled by the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Diagnostics Committee was circulated from December 2020 to May 2021. The survey was sent to local hospitals, shared on the ClinMicroNet and Division C listservs, and included in a College of American Pathologists proficiency testing survey.
Results: Ninety-six laboratories of various sizes across the United States (95%) and outside of the United States (5%) participated. Of the laboratories that had at least 1 rapid diagnostic in place (94%), significant heterogeneity in methods used and reporting practices was found across community (52%) and academic (40%) laboratories serving hospitals of various sizes. Respondents had implemented 1 to 6 different panels/platforms for a total of 31 permutations. Methods of reporting rapid organism identification and AMR results varied from listing all targets as "detected"/"not detected" (16-22%) without interpretive guidance, to interpreting results (23-42%), or providing therapeutic guidance comments to patient-facing healthcare teams (3-17%).
Conclusions: Current approaches to reporting molecular AMR test results from positive blood culture vary significantly across clinical laboratories. Providing interpretative comments with therapeutic guidance alongside results reported may assist clinicians who are not well-versed in genetic mechanisms of AMR. However, this is currently not being done in all clinical laboratories. Standardized strategies for AMR gene result reporting are needed.
Keywords: AMR marker reporting; antimicrobial resistance test result reporting; blood cultures; multiplex molecular panels.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.