A qualitative investigation of paediatric intensive care staff attitudes towards the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection in the molecular diagnostics era

Background In the past decade, molecular diagnostic syndromic arrays incorporating a range of bacterial and viral pathogens have been described. It is unclear how paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff diagnose lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and integrate diagnostic array results into antimicrobial decision-making. Methods An online survey with eleven questions was distributed throughout paediatric intensive care societies in the UK, continental Europe and Australasia with a total of 755 members. Participants were asked to rate the clinical factors and investigations they used when prescribing for LRTI. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with staff who participated in a single-centre observational study of a 52-pathogen diagnostic array. Results Seventy-two survey responses were received; most responses were from senior doctors. Whilst diagnostic arrays were used less frequently than routine investigations (i.e. microbiological culture), they were of comparable perceived utility when making antimicrobial decisions. Prescribers reported that for arrays to be clinically impactful, they would need to deliver results within 6 h for stable patients and within 1 h for unstable patients to inform their immediate decision to prescribe antimicrobials. From 16 staff interviews, we identified that arrays were helpful for the diagnosis and screening of bacterial LRTI. Staff reported it could be challenging to interpret results in some cases due to the high sensitivity of the test. Therefore, results were considered within the context of the patient and discussed within the multidisciplinary team. Conclusions Diagnostic arrays were considered of comparable value to microbiological investigations by PICU prescribers. Our findings support the need for further clinical and economic evaluation of diagnostic arrays in a randomised control trial. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04233268. Registered on 18 January 2020

A qualitative investigation of paediatric intensive care staff attitudes towards the diagnosis of lower respiratory tract infection in the molecular diagnostics era.

Acknowledgements: We thank all the prescribers locally and abroad for participating in our survey. We also thank the paediatric intensive care unit staff at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, for participating in the interviews, and Ms Carmel Delzoppo, Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne for assisting with survey distribution in Australasia. We are grateful for the expert study methodology advice of Dr Alexandra Freeman, Dr. Gabriel Recchia and Ms Alice Lawrence, Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge.Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100018956Funder: Academy of Medical Sciences; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000691Funder: Health Foundation Clinical Scientist FellowshipBACKGROUND: In the past decade, molecular diagnostic syndromic arrays incorporating a range of bacterial and viral pathogens have been described. It is unclear how paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) staff diagnose lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and integrate diagnostic array results into antimicrobial decision-making. METHODS: An online survey with eleven questions was distributed throughout paediatric intensive care societies in the UK, continental Europe and Australasia with a total of 755 members. Participants were asked to rate the clinical factors and investigations they used when prescribing for LRTI. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with staff who participated in a single-centre observational study of a 52-pathogen diagnostic array. RESULTS: Seventy-two survey responses were received; most responses were from senior doctors. Whilst diagnostic arrays were used less frequently than routine investigations (i.e. microbiological culture), they were of comparable perceived utility when making antimicrobial decisions. Prescribers reported that for arrays to be clinically impactful, they would need to deliver results within 6 h for stable patients and within 1 h for unstable patients to inform their immediate decision to prescribe antimicrobials. From 16 staff interviews, we identified that arrays were helpful for the diagnosis and screening of bacterial LRTI. Staff reported it could be challenging to interpret results in some cases due to the high sensitivity of the test. Therefore, results were considered within the context of the patient and discussed within the multidisciplinary team. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic arrays were considered of comparable value to microbiological investigations by PICU prescribers. Our findings support the need for further clinical and economic evaluation of diagnostic arrays in a randomised control trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04233268. Registered on 18 January 2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44253-023-00008-z

The rapid detection of respiratory pathogens in critically ill children.

Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentrePURPOSE: Respiratory infections are the most common reason for admission to paediatric intensive care units (PICU). Most patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) receive broad-spectrum antimicrobials, despite low rates of bacterial culture confirmation. Here, we evaluated a molecular diagnostic test for LRTI to inform the better use of antimicrobials. METHODS: The Rapid Assay for Sick Children with Acute Lung infection Study was a single-centre, prospective, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated children (> 37/40 weeks corrected gestation to 18 years) with suspected community acquired or ventilator-associated LRTI. We evaluated the use of a 52-pathogen custom TaqMan Array Card (TAC) to identify pathogens in non-bronchoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage (mini-BAL) samples. TAC results were compared to routine microbiology testing. Primary study outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of TAC, and time to result. RESULTS: We enrolled 100 patients, all of whom were tested with TAC and 91 of whom had matching culture samples. TAC had a sensitivity of 89.5% (95% confidence interval (CI95) 66.9-98.7) and specificity of 97.9% (CI95 97.2-98.5) compared to routine bacterial and fungal culture. TAC took a median 25.8 h (IQR 9.1-29.8 h) from sample collection to result. Culture was significantly slower: median 110.4 h (IQR 85.2-141.6 h) for a positive result and median 69.4 h (IQR 52.8-78.6) for a negative result. CONCLUSIONS: TAC is a reliable and rapid adjunct diagnostic approach for LRTI in critically ill children, with the potential to aid early rationalisation of antimicrobial therapy

Stakeholders’ perspectives on clinical trial acceptability and approach to consent within a limited timeframe: a mixed methods study

Objectives The Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.Design A mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.Setting Fourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.Participants Of the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.Results Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child’s participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be ‘streamlined’ to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.Conclusion Parents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.Trial registration number ISRCTN11746266