Background: In recent years, several rapid molecular diagnostic tests (RMDTs) for infectious diseases diagnostics, such as bloodstream infections (BSIs), have become available for clinical use. The extent to which RMDTs have been adopted and how the results of these tests have been incorporated into clinical care are currently unknown. Methods: We surveyed members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network to characterize utilization of RMDT in hospitals and antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) involvement in result communication and interpretation. The survey was administered using Qualtrics software, and data were analyzed using Stata and Excel software. Results: Overall, 57 responses were received (response rate, 59%), and 72% were from academic hospitals; 50 hospitals (88%) used at least 1 RMDT for BSI (Fig. 1). The factors most commonly reported to have been important in the decision to adopt RMDT were improvements in antimicrobial usage (82%), clinical outcomes (74%), and laboratory efficiency (52%). Among 7 hospitals that did not use RMDT for BSI, the most common reason was cost of new technology. In 50 hospitals with RMDT for BSI, 54% provided written guidelines for optimization or de-escalation of antimicrobials based upon RMDT results. In 40 hospitals (80%), microbiology laboratories directly notified a healthcare worker of the RMDT results: 70% provided results to a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant; 48% to the ASP team; and 33% to a nurse. Furthermore, 11 hospitals (22%) had neither guidelines nor ASP intervention. In addition, 24 hospitals (48%) reported performing postimplementation evaluation of RMDT impact. Reported findings included reduction in time to antibiotic de-escalation (75%), reduction in length of stay (25%), improved laboratory efficiency (20%), and reduction in mortality and overall costs (12%). Among the 47 hospitals with both RMDT and ASP, 79% reported that the ASP team routinely reviewed blood culture RMDT results, and 53.2% used clinical decision support software to do so. Finally, 53 hospitals (93%) used 1 or more RMDT for non–bloodstream infections (Fig. 1). Fewer than half of hospitals provided written guidelines to assist clinicians in interpreting these RMDT results. Conclusions: RMDTs have been widely adopted by participating hospitals and are associated with positive self-reported clinical, logistic, and financial outcomes. However, nearly 1 in 4 hospitals did not have guidelines or ASP interventions to assist clinicians with optimization of antimicrobial prescribing based on RMDT results for BSI. Also, most hospitals did not have guidelines for RMDT results for non-BSI. These findings suggest that opportunities exist to further enhance the potential benefits of RMDT.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
Unequal chances: ex ante fairness and individual control