Identification of Clinical Characteristics Associated With High-Level Care Among Patients With Skin and Soft Tissue Infections.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Serious adverse outcomes associated with skin and soft tissue infections are uncommon, and current hospitalization rates appear excessive. It would be advantageous to be able to differentiate between patients who require high-level inpatient services and those who receive little benefit from hospitalization. We sought to identify characteristics associated with the need for high-level inpatient care among emergency department patients presenting with skin and soft tissue infections. METHODS: We conducted a nonconcurrent review of existing records to identify emergency department (ED) patients treated for skin and soft tissue infections. For each case, we recorded the presence or absence of select criteria and whether the patient needed high-level care, defined as ICU admission, operating room surgical intervention, or death as the primary outcome. We applied recursive partitioning to identify the principal criteria associated with high-level care. RESULTS: We identified 2,923 patients, including 84 experiencing high-level events. Recursive partitioning identified 6 variables associated with high-level outcomes: abnormal computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasonographic imaging result; systemic inflammatory response syndrome; history of diabetes; previous infection at the same location; older than 65 years; and an infection involving the hand. One or more of these variables were present in all 84 patients requiring high-level care. CONCLUSION: A limited number of simple clinical characteristics appear to be able to identify skin and soft tissue infection patients who require high-level inpatient services. Further research is needed to determine whether patients who do not exhibit these criteria can be safely discharged from the ED.

Patient perspectives on antibiotics for appendicitis at one hospital.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis has long been considered a progressive inflammatory condition best treated by prompt appendectomy. Recently, several trials comparing initial treatment with antibiotics alone to appendectomy suggest that antibiotic therapy may be a safe option in select patients. However, little is known about patients' understanding of appendicitis, prioritized outcomes, and treatment preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational survey at a Los Angeles County public hospital emergency department. Trained study coordinators recorded the following data on each subject: basic knowledge of appendicitis, past surgical and antibiotic history, and medical illness outcome priorities. Participants were then educated about appendicitis and were told that studies had demonstrated that appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics alone. Subjects were then surveyed as to their preference for urgent surgery or antibiotics alone in a hypothetical scenario of acute uncomplicated appendicitis. RESULTS: Of 129 subjects interviewed, 56 (43%) correctly defined appendicitis, and 69 (53%) identified the treatment for appendicitis as surgery. When presented with a hypothetical acute appendicitis scenario, 57% chose antibiotics over surgery. Persons with previous appendectomy and parents of minors more often chose antibiotics alone, 74% and 63%, respectively. Dying was the most frequently cited and highest-ranked concern about medical illness. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that, among persons at one US public hospital, understanding of appendicitis is poor. Once presented with background information about appendicitis and being informed that antibiotics can safely treat appendicitis, many people would prefer an antibiotic approach over appendectomy. Death is the most prioritized concern.

Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Academic medical researchers are judged by how often their publications are cited in the literature. When serving as journal reviewers, they may be more favorably disposed to manuscripts that cite their work. We investigate whether manuscripts that contain a citation to the reviewer's work receive higher evaluations than those that do not and whether peer reviewers encourage authors to cite that reviewer's work. METHODS: We analyzed all research manuscripts submitted in 2012 to Annals of Emergency Medicine to determine whether they contained citations to each reviewer's work. To determine whether citation affected reviewer scores, we obtained each reviewer's score of the manuscript's overall desirability (1=worst to 5=best) and used descriptive statistics and regression modeling to compare scores of cited and noncited reviewers. We also enumerated how often reviewers suggested that authors add citations to the reviewer's work or other work. RESULTS: There were 395 manuscripts and 999 corresponding reviews with an manuscript desirability score. The 83 reviews by cited reviewers (8.3%) had a mean score of 2.8 (SD 1.4); the 916 reviews by noncited reviewers (91.7%), 2.5 (1.2; Δ=0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 0.6). The mean score in the 117 reviews of the noncited reviewers of the 57 manuscripts that had both cited and noncited reviewers was 2.9 (SD 1.2) compared with 2.9 (SD 1.1) for the 68 reviews by cited reviewers (Δ=0; 95% CI -0.3 to 0.4). In the final ordinal regression model, the unadjusted OR for the manuscript desirability score was 1.6 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.7); when adjusting for the manuscripts' mean desirability score, it was 1.4 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.2), demonstrating that manuscript quality was a confounder. Authors were asked to add a citation to the reviewer's work in 28 reviews (3%) but to others' work in 98 (10%). CONCLUSION: In a leading specialty journal, cited reviewers gave higher scores than noncited reviewers. However, this was likely due to their being assigned higher-quality manuscripts and not because they were cited in the manuscript. Reviewer requests that their work be cited were rare.