Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Int Wound J. 2024 Jun;21(6):e14912. doi: 10.1111/iwj.14912.
Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) often become infected and are treated with antimicrobials, with samples collected to inform care. Swab samples are easier than tissue sampling but report fewer organisms. Compared with culture and sensitivity (C&S) methods, molecular microbiology identifies more organisms. Clinician perspectives on sampling and processing are unknown. We explored clinician perspectives on DFU sampling-tissue samples/wound swabs-and on processing techniques, culture and sensitivity or molecular techniques. The latter provides information on organisms which have not survived transport to the laboratory for culture. We solicited feedback on molecular microbiology reports. Qualitative study using semi-structured interview, with analysis using a Framework approach. CODIFI2 clinicians from UK DFU clinics. Seven consultants agreed to take part. They reported, overall, a preference for tissue samples over swabbing. Clinicians were not confident replacing C&S with molecular microbiology as the approach to reporting was unfamiliar. The study was small and did not recruit any podiatrists or nurses, who may have discipline-specific attitudes or perspectives on DFU care. Both sampling approaches appear to be used by clinicians. Molecular microbiology reports would not be, at present, suitable for replacement of traditional culture and sensitivity.
糖尿病足溃疡(DFU)常发生感染,需使用抗菌药物治疗,采集样本以指导治疗。拭子样本比组织采样更容易,但报告的微生物种类较少。与培养和药敏(C&S)方法相比,分子微生物学可识别更多的微生物。目前尚不清楚临床医生对样本采集(组织样本/伤口拭子)和处理技术、培养和药敏或分子技术的看法。后者可提供有关在运输至实验室进行培养过程中未存活的微生物的信息。我们征求了临床医生对分子微生物学报告的反馈意见。采用半结构式访谈进行定性研究,使用框架方法进行分析。来自英国 DFU 诊所的 CODIFI2 临床医生。有 7 位顾问同意参与。他们总体上报告说,他们更喜欢组织样本而不是拭子。临床医生对用分子微生物学取代培养和药敏作为报告方法并不自信,因为他们对这种方法不熟悉。该研究规模较小,没有招募任何足病医生或护士,他们可能对 DFU 护理有特定学科的态度或观点。两种采样方法似乎都被临床医生使用。目前,分子微生物学报告不太适合替代传统的培养和药敏。