Evaluating quality indicators for patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Several organizations have published evidence-based quality indicators for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, there is variability in the types of indicators presented between organizations and the level of supporting evidence for each of the indicators. A systematic review of the literature and relevant Internet Web sites was performed to identify quality indicators for CAP that have been proposed or recommended by organizations, and each of the indicators was then critically appraised, using a well-defined set of criteria. METHODOLOGY: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Best Evidence, and Cochrane Systematic Review databases and Internet Web sites were searched for articles and guidelines published between January 1980 and May 2001 to identify quality indicators for CAP and relevant evidence. Experts in the area of health services research were contacted to identify additional sources. A well-defined set of criteria was applied to evaluate each of the quality indicators. RESULTS: The systematic review of the literature and Internet Web sites yielded 44 CAP-specific quality indicators. The critical appraisal of these indicators yielded 16 indicators that were supported by a study that identified an association between quality of care and the process of care or outcome measure, were applied to enough patients to be able to detect clinically meaningful differences, were clinically and/or economically relevant, were measurable in a clinical practice setting, and were precise in their specifications. CONCLUSIONS: Many organizations recommend indicators for CAP. Indicators may serve as measures of clinical performance for clinicians and hospitals, may help in benchmarking, and may ultimately facilitate improvements in quality of care and cost reductions. However, CAP indicators often vary in their meaningfulness, scientific soundness, and interpretability of results. A set of five critical appraisal questions may assist in the evaluation of which quality indicators are most valid.

Achieving a safe and early discharge for patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

The rationale for achieving an early discharge for patients with CAP is that reduced length of stay can result in lower costs. When hospital discharge is premature, however, use of resources after discharge from the hospital may increase. This situation could increase overall cost and worsen quality of care. The objective should be to achieve a safe and early discharge. Several studies have evaluated methods for achieving this goal. Key findings from these studies are as follows: When a patient achieves clinical stability (e.g., systolic blood pressure, > or = 90 mm Hg; heart rate, < or = 100 beats/min; respiratory rate, < or = 24 breaths/min; temperature, < or = 38.3 degrees C [101 degrees F]; oxygen saturation, > or = 90%; able to eat; and stable mental status) or fulfills appropriate criteria (see Table 2), the patient may be eligible for switch from parenteral to oral antibiotics and early discharge. For many patients, this switch or discharge may occur on day 3 of hospitalization. When a patient is switched from parenteral to oral antibiotics, in many cases there does not appear to be a demonstrable clinical benefit to in-hospital observation. Elimination of in-hospital observation for patients who do not have an obvious reason for continued hospitalization potentially could reduce length of stay by 1 day. Improving efficiency of care reduces length of stay. This reduction may be accomplished by implementing clinical pathways, identifying and correcting causes of medically unnecessary hospital days, initiating early discharge planning, enlisting the services of a discharge coordinator, and organizing outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment programs. These strategies are effective in many but not all patients, and their application should be tempered with careful clinical judgment.

Improving pneumococcal vaccine rates. Nurse protocols versus clinical reminders.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of three interventions designed to improve the pneumococcal vaccination rate. DESIGN: A prospective controlled trial. SETTING: Department of Veterans Affairs ambulatory care clinic. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: There were 3, 502 outpatients with scheduled visits divided into three clinic teams (A, B, or C). INTERVENTIONS: During a 12-week period, each clinic team received one intervention: (A) nurse standing orders with comparative feedback as well as patient and clinician reminders; (B) nurse standing orders with compliance reminders as well as patient and clinician reminders; and (C) patient and clinician reminders alone. Team A nurses (comparative feedback group) received information on their vaccine rates relative to those of team B nurses. Team B nurses (compliance reminders group) received reminders to vaccinate but no information on vaccine rates. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Team A nurses assessed more patients than team B nurses (39% vs 34%, p =.009). However, vaccination rates per total patient population were similar (22% vs 25%, p =.09). The vaccination rates for both team A and team B were significantly higher than the 5% vaccination rate for team C (p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-initiated vaccine protocols raised vaccination rates substantially more than a physician and patient reminder system. The nurse-initiated protocol with comparative feedback modestly improved the assessment rate compared with the protocol with compliance reminders, but overall vaccination rates were similar.

The clinical benefit of in-hospital observation in 'low-risk' pneumonia patients after conversion from parenteral to oral antimicrobial therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of in-hospital observation in "low-risk" patients with community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN: Retrospective review of data from a prospective study. SETTING: Teaching community hospital. PATIENTS: We studied 717 consecutive, adult patients admitted to the hospital for pneumonia. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: One hundred forty-five patients were classified at low-risk for complications using previously studied criteria; 144 (99%) charts were available for review. Two patients had "obvious reasons for continued hospitalization" on the day of antibiotic conversion and were excluded. One hundred two patients were observed, and 40 were not observed in-hospital after switch to oral antibiotics. No patient from either group required medical intervention within 24 h after hospital discharge. Five "observed" patients (5%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2 to 11%) returned to the emergency department, three (3%; 95% CI, 0 to 9%) with respiratory complaints. Two (2%; 95% CI, 0 to 7%) "observed" patients were admitted to the hospital with recurrent pneumonia. One (3%; 95% CI, 0 to 13%) "not observed" patient returned to the emergency department with a nonrespiratory complaint and was not admitted. No patient from either group died within 30-day clinical follow-up. The length of stay for the "observed" and "not observed" groups was 98+/-33 h and 83+/-49 h, respectively. The difference in length of stay was 15 h (95% CI, 3 to 27). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital observation for low-risk patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia after switch from parenteral to oral antibiotics is of limited benefit, and elimination of this practice could potentially reduce length of stay by almost 1 day per patient. This could translate into a cost savings of $57,200 for the 22-month study period. These results require prospective validation in a larger study.