Empiric Antibiotic Prescribing Decisions Among Medical Residents: The Role of the Antibiogram

OBJECTIVE To assess general medical residents’ familiarity with antibiograms using a self-administered survey DESIGN Cross-sectional, single-center survey PARTICIPANTS Residents in internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics at an academic medical center METHODS Participants were administered an anonymous survey at our institution during regularly scheduled educational conferences between January and May 2012. Questions collected data regarding demographics, professional training; further open-ended questions assessed knowledge and use of antibiograms regarding possible pathogens, antibiotic regimens, and prescribing resources for 2 clinical vignettes; a series of directed, closed-ended questions followed. Bivariate analyses to compare responses between residency programs were performed. RESULTS Of 122 surveys distributed, 106 residents (87%) responded; internal medicine residents accounted for 69% of responses. More than 20% of residents could not accurately identify pathogens to target with empiric therapy or select therapy with an appropriate spectrum of activity in response to the clinical vignettes; correct identification of potential pathogens was not associated with selecting appropriate therapy. Only 12% of respondents identified antibiograms as a resource when prescribing empiric antibiotic therapy for scenarios in the vignettes, with most selecting the UpToDate online clinical decision support resource or The Sanford Guide . When directly questioned, 89% reported awareness of institutional antibiograms, but only 70% felt comfortable using them and only 44% knew how to access them. CONCLUSIONS When selecting empiric antibiotics, many residents are not comfortable using antibiograms as part of treatment decisions. Efforts to improve antibiotic use may benefit from residents being given additional education on both infectious diseases pharmacotherapy and antibiogram utilization. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:578–583