Routine use of the Pneumonia Severity Index for guiding the site-of-treatment decision of patients with pneumonia in the emergency department: a multicenter, prospective, observational, controlled cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) has been extensively validated, little is known of the impact of its routine use as an aid to site-of-treatment decisions for patients with pneumonia who present to emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: A prospective, observational, controlled cohort study of patients with pneumonia was conducted in 8 EDs that used the PSI (PSI-user EDs) and 8 EDs that did not use the PSI (PSI-nonuser EDs) in France. The outcomes examined included the proportion of "low-risk" patients (PSI risk classes I-III) treated as outpatients, all-cause 28-day mortality, admission of inpatients to the intensive care unit, and subsequent hospitalization of outpatients. RESULTS: Of the 925 patients enrolled in the study, 472 (51.0%) were treated at PSI-user EDs, and 453 (49.0%) were treated at PSI-nonuser EDs; 449 (48.5%) of all patients were considered to be at low risk. In PSI-user EDs, 92 (42.8%) of 215 patients at low risk were treated as outpatients, compared with 56 (23.9%) of 234 patients at low risk in PSI-nonuser EDs. The adjusted odds ratios for outpatient treatment were higher for patients in PSI risk classes I and II who were treated in PSI-user EDs, compared with PSI-nonuser EDs (adjusted odds ratio, 7.0 [95% confidence interval, 2.0-25.0] and 4.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-16.2], respectively), whereas the adjusted odds ratio did not differ by PSI-user status among patients in risk class III or among patients at high risk. After adjusting for pneumonia severity, mortality was lower in patients who were treated in PSI-user EDs; other safety outcomes did not differ between patients treated in PSI-user and PSI-nonuser EDs. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of the PSI was associated with a larger proportion of patients in PSI risk classes I and II who had pneumonia and who were treated in the outpatient environment without compromising their safety.

[Non-justified visits to emergency units. Proposal of differentiated care]. / Les passages non justifiés au service d'accueil urgences. Proposition d'une offre de soins différenciée.

OBJECTIVE: The number of visits to emergency units in public hospital settings in France increases every year. The adequation between admission to an SAU--Service d'accueil d'urgence (emergency unit) and the clinical status of the patient must be checked to improve handling upstream of the SAU. METHOD: A prospective study was conducted in the SAU of the University Hospital in Nantes to assess the proportion of patients who would benefit from direct hospitalisation, scheduled in a department of specialised or polyvalent medicine. RESULTS: This proportion was of 10%. Seventy-three percent of the patients were aged over 60. They were referred in 77% of cases by their treating physician and in 10.4% of cases by the physician on duty. Thirty-three percent of cases were non-specified organ diseases, 20% were dermatological affections, 12% broncho-pulmonary infections and in the same proportion rheumatological pathologies; other affections were rare. COMMENTS: The results of this study must be confirmed in a pilot study in which the general practitioner would refer any patient, that he would have sent to an SAU, directly to a medical department without passing through the SAU. To do so, using a cell phone, the practitioner would contact the hospital physician who would find a hospital bed. The impact of this new modality of hospitalisation on the SAU could be assessed in terms of the number of admissions avoided to the SAU.