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.
