Article

Requesting physicians' experiences regarding infectious disease consultations

Infectious Diseases Unit, Grenoble University Hospital, F-38043, Grenoble, France.
BMC Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 2.56). 03/2011; 11:62. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-11-62
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Solicited consultations constitute a substantial workload for infectious disease (ID) specialists in the hospital setting. The objectives of this survey were to describe requesting physicians' experiences regarding ID consultations.
A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a university-affiliated hospital in France in 2009. All physicians were eligible (n = 530) and received a self-administered questionnaire. The main outcomes were reasons for request and opinion. Secondary outcomes were frequency of request and declared adherence to recommendations.
The participation rate was 44.7% (237/530). Among the responders, 187 (79%) had solicited the ID consultation service within the previous year. Ninety-three percent of the responders (173/187) were satisfied with the ID consultation. The main reasons for requesting consultations were the need for therapeutic advice (93%), quality of care improvement (73%) and the rapidity of access (61%). ID consultations were requested several times a month by 52% (72/138) of senior physicians and by 73% (36/49) of residents (p = 0.01). Self-reported adherence to diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations was 83% and 79%, respectively.
The respondent requesting physicians expressed great satisfaction regarding ID consultations that they requested principally to improve patient care and to assist in medical decision making.

Full-text

Available from: Patrice François, May 04, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
89 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Given the current bacterial resistance crisis, antimicrobial stewardship programmes are of utmost importance. We present here a narrative review of the impact of infectious diseases specialists (IDS) on the quality and quantity of antibiotic use in acute care hospitals, and discuss the main factors that could limit the efficacy of IDS recommendations. A total of 31 studies were included in this review, with a wide range of infections, hospital settings and types of antibiotic prescriptions. Seven of 31 studies were randomised controlled trials, before/after controlled studies or before/after uncontrolled studies with interrupted time-series analysis. In almost all studies, IDS intervention was associated with a significant improvement of the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing compared with prescriptions without any IDS input, and with decreased antibiotic consumption. Variability in the antibiotic prescribing practices of IDS, informal (curbside) consultations, involvement of junior IDS are among the factors that could have an impact on the efficacy of IDS recommendations and on compliance rates, and deserve further investigation. We also discuss possible drawbacks of IDS in acute care hospitals that are rarely reported in the published literature. Overall, IDS are valuable to antimicrobial stewardship programmes in hospitals, but their impact depends on many human and organisational factors.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Clinical Microbiology and Infection 07/2014; 20(10). DOI:10.1111/1469-0691.12751 · 5.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to describe the value of infectious disease specialist consultations for surgeons at comprehensive cancer centers. A total of 151 cancer surgery inpatients were retrospectively assessed during a 12-month period. We focused on the characteristics of the infectious disease consultations from surgical departments: the referring surgical divisions, the referral phases, and the reasons for the infectious disease consultations. Three-quarters of all consultation requests were made after the day of surgery. Approximately, 60 % of these requests were made within 30 days after surgery for cancer. The reasons for the infectious disease consultations could be classified into three categories: diagnosis and management (54 %), management of established infections (44 %), and surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (3 %). The most requested reason for consultations was the diagnosis and management of fever or elevated inflammatory markers of unknown etiology. Among the management of established infections, the antimicrobial management of surgical site infections was most frequently requested. Many surgeons would prefer infectious disease specialists to assume a more direct role in the care of difficult or perplexing cases (such as fevers of unknown origin) while also maintaining a traditional relationship in which the consultant recommends antimicrobial agents during a perioperative period. Particularly at cancer centers where oncology specialists account for a significant proportion of the providers, the knowledge and skill of infectious disease physicians are valued.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to evaluate an intervention to improve blood culture practices. A cluster randomised trial in two parallel groups was performed at the Grenoble University Hospital, France. In October 2009, the results of a practices audit and the guidelines for the optimal use of blood cultures were disseminated to clinical departments. We compared two types of information dissemination: simple presentation or presentation associated with an infectious diseases (ID) specialist intervention. The principal endpoint was blood culture performance measured by the rate of patients having one positive blood culture and the rate of positive blood cultures. The cases of 130 patients in the "ID" group and 119 patients in the "simple presentation" group were audited during the second audit in April 2010. The rate of patients with one positive blood culture increased in both groups (13.62 % vs 9.89 % for the ID group, p = 0.002, 15.90 % vs 13.47 % for the simple presentation group, p = 0.009). The rate of positive blood cultures improved in both groups (6.68 % vs 5.96 % for the ID group, p = 0.003, 6.52 % vs 6.21 % for the simple presentation group, p = 0.017). The blood culture indication was significantly less often specified in the request form in the simple presentation group, while it remained stable in the ID group (p = 0.04). The rate of positive blood cultures and the rate of patients having one positive blood culture improved in both groups. The ID specialist intervention did not have more of an impact on practices than a simple presentation of audit feedback and guidelines.
    European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 07/2014; 33(12). DOI:10.1007/s10096-014-2154-3 · 2.54 Impact Factor