Provider Perceptions of Antibiotic Initiation Strategies for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia

Background: The practice of rapidly initiating antibiotic therapy for patients with suspected infection has recently been criticized yet remains commonplace. Provider comfort level has been an understudied aspect of this practice.Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in provider comfort level between the two treatment groups.Methods: We prospectively surveyed critical care intensivists who provided care for patients enrolled in the Trial of Antibiotic Restraint in Presumed Pneumonia (TARPP), which was a multicenter cluster-randomized crossover trial that evaluated an immediate antibiotic initiation protocol compared with a protocol of specimen-initiated antibiotic initiation in ventilated patients with suspected new-onset pneumonia. At the end of each enrollment arm, physicians at each center were surveyed regarding their overall comfort level with the recently completed treatment arm, and perception of adherence. Both a paired and unpaired analysis was performed.Results: We collected 51 survey responses from 31 unique participants. Providers perceived a higher rate of adherence to the immediate initiation arm than the specimen-initiated arm (Always Adherent: 37.5% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.045). Providers were less comfortable waiting for objective evidence of infection in the specimen-initiated arm than with starting antibiotic agents immediately (Very Comfortable: 83.3% vs. 40.7%; p = 0.004). For the smaller paired analysis, there was no longer a difference in comfort level.Conclusions: There may be differences in provider comfort levels and perceptions of adherence when considering two different antibiotic initiation strategies for suspected pneumonia in ventilated patients. These findings should be considered when planning future studies.