Dataset Information

How good is our diagnostic intuition? Clinician prediction of bacteremia in critically ill children.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical intuition and nonanalytic reasoning play a major role in clinical hypothesis generation; however, clinicians' intuition about whether a critically ill child is bacteremic has not been explored. We endeavored to assess pediatric critical care clinicians' ability to predict bacteremia and to evaluate what affected the accuracy of those predictions.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of clinicians' responses to a sepsis screening tool ("Early Sepsis Detection Tool" or "ESDT") over 6 months. The ESDT was completed during the initial evaluation of a possible sepsis episode. If a culture was ordered, they were asked to predict if the culture would be positive or negative. Culture results were compared to predictions for each episode as well as vital signs and laboratory data from the preceding 24 h.

Results

From January to July 2017, 266 ESDTs were completed. Of the 135 blood culture episodes, 15% of cultures were positive. Clinicians correctly predicted patients with bacteremia in 82% of cases, but the positive predictive value was just 28% as there was a tendency to overestimate the presence of bacteremia. The negative predictive value was 96%. The presence of bandemia, thrombocytopenia, and abnormal CRP were associated with increased likelihood of correct positive prediction.

Conclusions

Clinicians are accurate in predicting critically ill children whose blood cultures, obtained for symptoms of sepsis, will be negative. Clinicians frequently overestimate the presence of bacteremia. The combination of evidence-based practice guidelines and bedside judgment should be leveraged to optimize diagnosis of bacteremia.

SUBMITTER: Hoops KEM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7330962 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine clinician accuracy in the identification and prediction of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingUniversity of Michigan's C.S. Mott Children's Hospital PICU.PatientsPatients admitted to the PICU with an anticipated PICU length of stay greater than 48 hours.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsFor each patient, the clinical team (attending, fellow, resident/nurse practitioner) was surveyed regarding existing and anticipated organ dysfunction. The primary outcomes were clinicians' accuracy at identifying multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and predicting new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, compared to the objective assessment of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome using Proulx criteria. We also measured sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and negative and positive likelihood ratios of clinician assessments. We tested for differences in accuracy by clinician type using chi-square tests. Clinicians rated their confidence in prediction on a 5-point Likert scale. There were 476 eligible PICU admissions, for whom 1,218 surveys were completed. Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome was present in 89 patients (18.7%) at enrollment, and new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome occurred in 39 (8.2%). Clinicians correctly identified multiple organ dysfunction syndrome with 79.9% accuracy and predicted additional organ dysfunction with 82.6% accuracy. However, the positive and negative likelihood ratios for new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome prediction were 3.0 and 0.7, respectively, indicating a weak relationship between the clinician prediction and development of new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. The positive predictive value of new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome prediction was just 22.1%. We found no differences in accuracy by clinician type for either identification of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (80.2% vs 78.2% vs 81.0%; p = 0.57) or prediction of new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (84.8% vs 82.8% vs 80.3%; p = 0.26) for attendings, fellows, and residents/nurse practitioners, respectively. There was a weak correlation between the confidence and accuracy of prediction (pairwise correlation coefficient, 0.26; p < 0.001).ConclusionsPICU clinicians correctly identified multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and predicted new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome with 80% accuracy. However, only 8% of patients developed new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, so accuracy was largely due to true negative predictions. The positive predictive value for new or progressive multiple organ dysfunction syndrome prediction was just 22%. Accuracy did not differ by clinician type, but was correlated with self-rated confidence and was higher for negative predictions.

Project description:ObjectivesSending blood cultures in children at low risk of bacteremia can contribute to a cascade of unnecessary antibiotic exposure, adverse effects, and increased costs. We aimed to describe practice variation, clinician beliefs, and attitudes about blood culture testing in critically ill children.DesignCross-sectional electronic survey.SettingFifteen PICUs enrolled in the Blood Culture Improvement Guidelines and Diagnostic Stewardship for Antibiotic Reduction in Critically Ill Children collaborative, an investigation of blood culture use in critically ill children in the United States.SubjectsPICU clinicians (bedside nurses, resident physicians, fellow physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and attending physicians).InterventionsNone.Measurement and main resultsSurvey items explored typical blood culture practices, attitudes and beliefs about cultures, and potential barriers to changing culture use in a PICU setting. Fifteen of 15 sites participated, with 347 total responses, 15-45 responses per site, and an overall median response rate of 57%. We summarized median proportions and interquartile ranges of respondents who reported certain practices or beliefs: 86% (73-91%) report that cultures are ordered reflexively; 71% (61-77%) do not examine patients before ordering cultures; 90% (86-94%) obtain cultures for any new fever in PICU patients; 33% (19-61%) do not obtain peripheral cultures when an indwelling catheter is in place; and 64% (36-81%) sample multiple (vs single) lumens of central venous catheters for new fever. When asked about barriers to reducing unnecessary cultures, 80% (73-90%) noted fear of missing sepsis. Certain practices (culture source and indication) varied by clinician type. Obtaining surveillance cultures and routinely culturing all possible sources (each lumen of indwelling catheters and peripheral specimens) are positively correlated with baseline blood culture rates.ConclusionsThere is variation in blood culture practices in the PICU. Fear and reflexive habits are common drivers of cultures. These practices may contribute to over-testing for bacteremia. Further investigation of how to optimize blood culture use is warranted.