No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Utility of follow-up recommendations for patients discharged with community-acquired pneumonia
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2015
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:
The joint Canadian Infectious Diseases Society and Canadian Thoracic Society guidelines for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) recommend 48–72 hour telephone follow-up of patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). The guidelines provide no evidence supporting this practice, and neither the clinical utility nor the effectiveness of such recommendations has been assessed. Our objective was to assess the utility of a 48–72 hour telephone follow-up protocol for patients discharged from the ED with CAP.
Methods:
This was a retrospective chart audit covering a 2-year period (Jan. 3, 1999 to Jan. 3, 2001) after the introduction of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that included routine 48–72 hour telephone follow-up of patients discharged from the ED with CAP. Eligible patients were identified in the ED database, rates of referral for telephone follow-up were recorded, and 30-day outcomes (death and readmission) for patients referred versus not referred were compared.
Results:
During the study period, 867 patients were identified as being eligible for the study. The mean age was 55.7 years (range 16–98 yr), and mean pneumonia severity index (PSI) was 68.9 (range 6–187). Despite the CPG, only 148 patients (17.1%) were referred for telephone follow-up. Age, demographics, comorbidity, clinical status and pneumonia severity were similar for referred and non-referred patients. Thirty-day death (2.5%) and readmission rates (3%) were strongly related to PSI score, but did not differ significantly in the 2 comparison groups.
Conclusions:
In this setting, physicians were poorly compliant with a routine telephone follow-up protocol. The likelihood of referral for follow-up did not correlate with pneumonia severity, and follow-up referral did not appear to affect patient outcome. These findings do not support recommendations for routine early follow-up mechanisms beyond those already existing in the community.
- Type
- EM Advances • Innovations En MU
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2004
References
1.Suchyta, MR, Dean, NC, Narus, S, Hadlock, CJ.Effects of a practice guideline for community-acquired pneumonia in an outpatient setting. Am J Med 2001;110(4):306–9.Google Scholar
2.Fine, MJ, Chowdhry, T, Ketema, A.Outpatient management of community-acquired pneumonia. Hosp Pract (Off Ed) 1998;33(6):123–33.Google Scholar
3.Marrie, TJ, Lau, CY, Wheeler, Sl, Wong, CJ, Vandervoort, MK, Feagan, BG.A controlled trial of a critical pathway for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. JAMA 2000;283:749–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Battleman, DS, Callahan, M, Thaler, HT.Rapid antibiotic delivery and appropriate antibiotic selection reduce hospital stay of patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:682–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Meehan, TP, Fine, MJ, Krumholz, HM, Scinto, JD, Galusha, DH, Mockalis, JT, et al. Quality of care, process and outcomes in elderly patients with pneumonia. JAMA 1997;278:2080–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Cregin, R, Segal-Maurer, S, Weinbaum, F, Rahal, J, Karbowitz, S, Sixsmith, D, et al. Multidisciplinary approach to improving treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002;59:364–8.Google Scholar
7.Halm, EA, Atlas, SJ, Borowsky, LH, Benzer, TI, Singer, DE.Change in physician knowledge and attitudes after implementation of a pneumonia practice guideline. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14(11):688–94.Google Scholar
8.Mandell, LA, Marrie, TJ, Grossman, RF, Chow, AW, Hyland, RH.Canadian guidelines for the initial management of community-acquired pneumonia: an evidence-based update by the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society and the Canadian Thoracic Society. The Canadian Community-Acquired Pneumonia Working Group. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:383–421.Google Scholar
9.Fine, MJ, Auble, TE, Yealy, DM, Hanusa, BH, Weissfeld, LA, Singer, DE, et al. A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med 1997;336:243–50.Google Scholar
10.Halm, EA, Atlas, SJ, Borowsky, LH, Benzer, TI, Metlay, JP, Chang, YC, et al. Understanding physician adherence with a pneumonia practice guideline: effects of patient, system, and physician factors. Arch Intern Med 2000;160(1):98–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Davis, DA, Taylor-Vaisey, A.Translating guidelines into practice: a systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 1997;157(4):408–16.Google Scholar
12.Basinski, ASH. Evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 1995;153:1575–81.Google ScholarPubMed
You have
Access