Evaluation of a pneumonia practice guideline in an interventional trial.

Department of Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Health System, University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, USA.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (Impact Factor: 11.99). 04/1996; 153(3):1110-5. DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.153.3.8630553
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There are few available data to define the medically necessary duration of stay for patients hospitalized with pneumonia. Therefore, we investigated the safety and effectiveness of a practice guideline that provided information about switching patients from parenteral to oral antimicrobials and early hospital discharge. The study was a prospective controlled study with an alternate month design. The practice guideline was studied in 146 "low-risk" pneumonia patients hospitalized during a 22-month period. Medical care consistent with the practice guideline occurred in 64% and 76% of patients during control and intervention periods, respectively (p=0.15). There were no differences in patient outcomes in the control and intervention groups when measured 1 mo after hospital discharge, including hospital readmission rates, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Explicit and implicit review revealed that 98.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 95.1%, 99.8%) of low-risk patients would not have benefited from continued hospitalization after the fourth hospital day. The 30-d survival rate of the low-risk pneumonia patients was 99.3% (95% CI: 96.2%, 100%) and patient outcomes appeared to be favorable compared with previously published values. We conclude that duration of hospital stay was frequently consistent with the practice guideline in both study groups, and patient outcomes remained unchanged. The guideline will require additional testing before it can be recommended for use.

  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 06/2001; 163(7):1730-1754. DOI:10.1164/ajrccm.163.7.at1010 · 11.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are treated in hospital or in the ambulatory care setting depending on the severity of illness. Despite numerous guidelines proposed, there is no agreement on specific criteria for hospitalization other than the clinicians’ experience. The purpose of this review is to discuss the importance of the appropriate choice and timely administration of antibacterial agents, either in the hospital or in the outpatient setting. Since a high proportion of CAP patients will not have an etiologic agent identified at the time of initiation of treatment, the choice of antibacterial therapy is usually empiric. Antibacterial agents with activity against pneumococci and atypical pathogens causing pneumonia are the preferred choices. Macrolides, doxycycline, or respiratory fluoroquinolones have been recommended by various guidelines committees in North America for the treatment of pneumonia in patients with or without underlying comorbidities. Because of the increasing resistance to β-lactams as well other antibacterial agents such as macrolides, doxycycline, and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (cotrimoxazole), it is important that clinicians are aware of local statistics on resistance to Streptococcus pneumoniae, as infection with this bacterium is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. More recently, fluoroquinolone resistance has been reported, but the percentage of pneumococcal strains resistant to this agent is relatively low compared with the other antibacterial agents. Switch (intravenous to oral) therapy is recommended for hospitalized patients with CAP to facilitate early discharge, which has been shown to improve patient satisfaction and reduce hospital costs. Early conversion to oral therapy has not been shown to be associated with increased complications or higher mortality. Following prompt intravenous therapy and stabilization, patients with CAP should be treated with oral therapy in the ambulatory setting.
    American journal of respiratory medicine: drugs, devices, and other interventions 10/2012; 2(5). DOI:10.1007/BF03256666
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective:To investigate the effects of a physiotherapy protocol on patients with pleural effusion.Design:Randomized controlled trial.Setting:University hospital.Participants:A total of 104 consecutive inpatients with a medical diagnosis of pleural effusion.Intervention:Patients were randomly allocated to a control group receiving standard treatment (medical treatment and drainage) or an intervention group treated with physiotherapy added to standard treatment. The physiotherapy programme included deep breathing exercises, mobilizations and incentive spirometry.Main outcome measures:Spirometric predicted values and chest radiographs were measured before treatment and at discharge and the length of hospital stay was recorded. Assessors were blinded to the intervention.Results:A comparative analysis showed a significant improvement of spirometric parameters in the intervention group; pre-to-post hospitalization predicted values showed significant changes in vital capacity (73.1 ± 12.6% to 72.13 ± 13.7 %, P<0.001 ), forced expiratory volume in first second (72.13 ± 13.7% to 78.98 ± 16.9%, P<0.001) and forced expiratory flow at 25-75 % (64.8 ± 35.1% to 76.78 ± 35.3%, P=0.198) compared to the control group that showed no significant changes across treatment. The radiographic findings showed better scores on the affected side of the thorax at discharge in the physiotherapy group. Length of hospital stay was also significantly (P=0.014) shorter in the intervention group (26.7 ± 8.8 days) compared to the control group (38.6 ± 10.7 days).Conclusions:A physiotherapy programme added to standard treatment improves the spirometric parameters and the radiological findings and reduces the hospital stay in patients with a pleural effusion.
    Clinical Rehabilitation 04/2014; 28(11). DOI:10.1177/0269215514530579 · 2.18 Impact Factor