Abstract：
Fungal nomenclature changes have been a regular occurrence in recent years, eliciting heated debate on whether such changes will confuse clinicians and harm patients. We conducted surveys of Australasian laboratory staff and clinicians to assess attitudes, practices, and concerns regarding nomenclatural change. The majority of respondents to both surveys were aware of fungal nomenclatural changes (93.5% laboratories, 79.7% clinicians); 72.8% of laboratories had already implemented nomenclature changes, and 68.7% of clinicians recalled receiving at least one laboratory report utilizing updated fungal nomenclature. The vast majority of clinicians (94%) both within and outside of infection specialties supported laboratories reporting updated species names with inclusion of the previous species name. The importance of including the previous name on reports was demonstrated by 73.3% of clinicians viewing \"Nakaseomyces glabrata (formerly Candida glabrata)\" as clinically significant, versus only 38.2% viewing \"Pichia kudriavzeveii\" as significant in the absence of its former name. When asked about reporting practices, 73.9% of laboratories would report a Candida krusei isolate as \"Pichia kudriavzeveii (formerly Candida krusei),\" with the rest reporting as \"Candida krusei\" (21.7%) or \"Pichia kudriavzeveii\" (1.1%) without further explanation. Laboratory concerns included clinicians being confused by reports, commonly used identification platforms continuing to use superseded species names, education of staff, and delays in updating species codes in laboratory information systems. Adopting fungal name changes appears to be well supported by laboratories and clinicians in Australia and New Zealand, and can be achieved safely and unambiguously provided the former name is included on reports. IMPORTANCE Recent changes in fungal species names have been contentious, eliciting heated debate on social media. Despite available recommendations on adapting to the changes, concerns include clinicians dismissing pathogens as contaminants with patient harm as a result, and disruption of the literature. Such concerns are understandable, but are not supported by evidence and may represent a vocal minority. This survey of Australasian laboratories and clinicians assesses attitudes and practices relating to changes in fungal nomenclature and found that there is overwhelming support for adopting nomenclature changes.
摘要：
真菌命名法的变化是近年来经常发生的，引发了关于这种变化是否会混淆临床医生和伤害患者的激烈辩论。我们对澳大利亚实验室工作人员和临床医生进行了调查，以评估态度，实践,以及对术语变化的担忧。两项调查的大多数受访者都知道真菌命名变化(93.5%的实验室，79.7%的临床医生)；72.8%的实验室已经实施了术语变更，68.7%的临床医生回忆说，至少收到了一份使用最新真菌命名法的实验室报告。感染专业内外的绝大多数临床医生（94％）支持实验室报告更新的物种名称，其中包括以前的物种名称。73.3%的临床医生认为“光滑念珠菌(原为光滑念珠菌)”具有临床意义，而只有38.2%的人认为“毕赤酵母kudriavzeveii”在没有它以前的名字的情况下具有重要意义。当被问及报告实践时，73.9%的实验室会报告一种克鲁斯假丝酵母分离株为“毕赤酵母”(原名克鲁斯假丝酵母)，其余报告为“念珠菌”（21.7％）或“毕赤酵母”（1.1％），无进一步解释。实验室关注的问题包括临床医生对报告感到困惑，常用的识别平台继续使用被取代的物种名称，员工教育,以及延迟更新实验室信息系统中的物种代码。采用真菌名称更改似乎得到了澳大利亚和新西兰的实验室和临床医生的大力支持，并且可以安全和明确地实现，前提是前一个名称包含在报告中。重要性最近真菌物种名称的变化一直存在争议，在社交媒体上引发激烈的辩论。尽管有关于适应变化的建议，关注的问题包括临床医生认为病原体是污染物，因此会对患者造成伤害，和文学的中断。这种担忧是可以理解的，但没有证据支持，可能代表少数声音。这项对澳大利亚实验室和临床医生的调查评估了与真菌命名法变化有关的态度和实践，发现采用命名法变化的支持是压倒性的。
