PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
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.
摘要：
糖尿病足溃疡（DFU）经常被感染，并接受抗微生物药物治疗，收集样本以告知护理。拭子样本比组织采样更容易，但报告的生物体较少。与培养和灵敏度(C&S)方法相比，分子微生物学识别更多的生物体。临床医生对采样和处理的看法是未知的。我们探讨了临床医生对DFU采样-组织样本/伤口拭子-以及处理技术的看法，培养和敏感性或分子技术。后者提供了有关未存活的生物体运输到实验室进行培养的信息。我们征求了分子微生物学报告的反馈意见。使用半结构化访谈的定性研究，使用框架方法进行分析。来自英国DFU诊所的CODIFI2临床医生。七名顾问同意参加。他们报告说,总的来说,组织样本优先于擦拭。临床医生没有信心用分子微生物学代替C＆S，因为报告的方法不熟悉。这项研究规模很小，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。分子微生物学报告不会，目前,适合替代传统文化和敏感性。
