An audit of inpatient management of community-acquired pneumonia in Oman: a comparison with regional clinical guidelines.
ABSTRACT Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Herein, we present the findings from an audit of CAP management at a tertiary hospital in Oman. The main objective was to evaluate the quality of care given to patients and compare it with the standards in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) CAP guidelines.
A retrospective case study of all patients admitted with CAP from June 2006 to September 2008 examined the adherence to standards for the diagnosis, investigation, and management of CAP, including the documentation of illness severity.
The case notes of 342 patients were reviewed. Of these, 170 patients were excluded from the study, and 172 patients met the diagnostic criteria for inclusion. A CURB-65 severity score was documented for only 4 (2.3%) patients, and a smoking history was documented for 56 (32.6%) patients. Although 17 different antibiotic regimens were used, 115 (67%) patients received co-amoxiclav and clarithromycin, which is the standard of care. Additionally, 139 (81%) patients received their first dose of antibiotics within four hours of hospital admission. There was no documentation of offering influenza or pneumococcal vaccine to high risk patients.
The clinical coding of CAP diagnosis was poor. There was very poor adherence to the CAP severity assessment and the provision of preventive measures upon hospital discharge. The development and implementation of a local hospital-based integrated care pathway may lead to more successful implementation of the guidelines.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common diagnosis and care of CAP is responsible for significant healthcare expenditures, the majority of which are for patients who require hospitalisation. Studies have shown that significant variation exists among institutions with respect to antibacterial costs and length of stay (LOS) for CAP. These variations do not appear to be associated with significant differences in patient outcomes. This information has stimulated the development of practice guidelines and critical pathways to optimise the care of patients with CAP. The central focus of guidelines is recommendations for antibacterial therapy; critical pathways include recommendations for therapy, but focus on the process of care for patients with CAP. Guidelines and critical pathways are time consuming to develop and their implementation requires significant institutional resources. Therefore, it is essential that they are shown to be effective, and there has been significant interest in determining if guidelines and pathways can improve the cost effectiveness of care. In the past several years, a number of studies have evaluated the impact of treatment consistent with guidelines on outcomes for patients with CAP. These studies have shown that antibacterial therapy that is consistent with guidelines can reduce LOS, decrease costs, and several have shown a favourable impact on mortality. The majority of these studies have been retrospective reviews. One multicenter prospective, randomised trial of a critical pathway for CAP revealed significant reductions in the hospital admission of patients, LOS and cost of care. Other studies of processes of care have been mainly 'before and after' interventions; many have shown reductions in LOS and costs. Based on the available data, it is reasonable to expect that adherence to guidelines and critical pathways can reduce the cost of care for CAP; however, randomised controlled trials that include a formal cost-effectiveness analysis are needed. Even if the data to support the use of guidelines and pathways are robust, those who develop and implement them need to anticipate and understand barriers to physician adherence.PharmacoEconomics 02/2004; 22(7):413-20. DOI:10.2165/00019053-200422070-00001 · 3.34 Impact Factor
Journal of chemotherapy (Florence, Italy) 11/2007; 19 Suppl 1:7-11. · 1.07 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is diagnosed on the basis of a suggestive history and compatible physical findings and new infiltrates on a chest radiograph. No criteria or combination of criteria based on history and physical examination have been found to be gold standard. With the rise in elderly Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) residents, CAP is likely to present with non-classical manifestations such as somnolence, new anorexia, and confusion and carries a worse outcome than CAP in their younger counterparts. Tuberculosis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of unresolving CAP in the GCC region. Diagnostic work up depends on severity of CAP, clinical course and underlying risk factors.Journal of chemotherapy (Florence, Italy) 11/2007; 19 Suppl 1:25-31. · 1.07 Impact Factor