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: Our aim was to examine and describe the current situation in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member countries regarding the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines (CPG). The objectives were to describe from where the studies originated, what the clinical focus was of each study and examine the methodology and the status of each study (i.e. development, dissemination, implementation and evaluation). Review of literature - two stages: stage 1: screening through an abstract review, followed by independent adjudicator; stage 2: detailed assessment and classification. Considering the widespread acceptance that CPG's are useful and effective tools for quality improvement in health care, it is worth noting that relatively few studies have been conducted in the GCC region that examine CPG. Furthermore, the reviewers found that the quality of the research methods used could be improved. The majority of the studies that were conducted evaluated the effects of guidelines and focused on the 'lifestyle diseases', in particular diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. It is also worth noting that there has been a steady increase in the number of publications over the 10 years period. More attention needs to be given to developing, disseminating, implementing and evaluating CPG's in the GCC region in order to improve the quality and safety of health care. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 03/2015; DOI:10.1111/jep.12337 · 1.58 Impact Factor