Hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia: the pneumonia severity index vs clinical judgment.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: (1) To define clinical factors that could justify hospital admission among patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) with risk classes of I or II. (2) To determine the positive predictive value of the pneumonia severity index as the sole indicator for detecting inappropriate hospitalizations among patients with CAP. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: University of Louisville Hospital and the Veterans Affairs Medical Center of Louisville, KY. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients fulfilling the criteria for CAP who were admitted to the hospital between October 1997 and May 2000. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The medical records of hospitalized patients with CAP having a risk class of I or II were identified and further reviewed to determine whether there existed a clinical basis to justify hospitalization. Of a total of 328 patients, 86 had a risk class of I or II. Among these, 72 had clinical factors that justified their hospital admission. These factors, in frequency of occurrence, included the following: medical conditions other than CAP that required hospitalization, 31 patients (43%); social needs, 13 patients (18%); oral intolerance, 10 patients (14%); failure of outpatient therapy, 10 patients (14%); noncompliance, 6 patients (9%); suspicion of sepsis, 1 patient (1%); and hypoxemia, 1 patient (1%). Among the 86 patients with low risk classes (ie, classes I or II), 14 were found to be inappropriately hospitalized, yielding a positive predictive value of 16%. CONCLUSIONS: The pneumonia severity index, used as the sole indicator for detecting inappropriate hospitalizations, has an unacceptably low positive predictive value. This is due primarily to the severity of comorbid conditions requiring in-hospital care in patients with a nonsevere pneumonia. According to our study, the pneumonia severity index should not be used as the sole indicator with which to define inappropriate hospitalization.

Assessment of a novel approach to evaluate the outcome of endoscope reprocessing.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and evaluate the use of a portable luminometer system for detecting contamination following the reprocessing and high-level disinfection of flexible endoscopes. DESIGN: Random sampling of endoscopes spaced at 1- to 2-week intervals following normal use in patients. METHODS: Portable luminometer system testing of 31 endoscopes undergoing reprocessing, 63 stored endoscopes, and 15 reprocessed endoscopes that underwent in-depth microbiological analysis. For testing with the portable luminometer system, samples were collected by swabbing a 100-cm2 shank surface area and the internal tip end orifice. Standardization of portable luminometer system results was performed in vitro by comparison of serial dilutions of known quantities of microorganisms and blood, tested before and after sterilization by autoclave. Microbiological analysis included Gram stain, culture for aerobic bacteria, and gene probes for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, herpes simplex viruses 1 and 2, and Cytomegalovirus. Trichrome and calcofluor white stains were used to detect parasites and fungi. Legionella was detected by stain with fluorescent-labeled monoclonal antibody. SETTING: The gastroendoscopy unit of a Veterans Affairs hospital. RESULTS: The portable luminometer system was capable of detecting microbial and cellular contamination of flexible endoscopes following high-level disinfection and reprocessing. The sensitivity of the assay was sufficient for detecting low-level contamination. CONCLUSIONS: The system provided a rapid microbiological outcome monitor for the cleaning and disinfection process. The system was easy to use and relatively accurate.