Marrie T J, Lau C Y, Wheeler S L, Wong C J, Vandervoort M K, Feagan B G
Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
JAMA. 2000 Feb 9;283(6):749-55. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.6.749.
Large variations exist among hospitals in the use of treatment resources for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Lack of a common approach to the diagnosis and treatment of CAP has been cited as an explanation for these variations.
To determine if use of a critical pathway improves the efficiency of treatment for CAP without compromising the well-being of patients.
Multicenter controlled clinical trial with cluster randomization and up to 6 weeks of follow-up.
Nineteen teaching and community hospitals in Canada.
A total of 1743 patients with CAP presenting to the emergency department at 1 of the participating institutions between January 1 and July 31, 1998.
Hospitals were assigned to continue conventional management (n = 10) or implement the critical pathway (n = 9), which consisted of a clinical prediction rule to guide the admission decision, levofloxacin therapy, and practice guidelines.
Effectiveness of the critical pathway, as measured by health-related quality of life on the Short-Form 36 Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) scale at 6 weeks; and resource utilization, as measured by the number of bed days per patient managed (BDPM).
Quality of life and the occurrence of complications, readmission, and mortality were not different for the 2 strategies; the 1-sided 95% confidence limit of the between-group difference in the SF-36 PCS change score was 2.4 points, which was within a predefined 3-point boundary for equivalence. Pathway use was associated with a 1.7-day reduction in BDPM (4.4 vs 6.1 days; P = .04) and an 18% decrease in the admission of low-risk patients (31% vs 49%; P = .01). Although inpatients at critical pathway hospitals had more severe disease, they required 1.7 fewer days of intravenous therapy (4.6 vs 6.3 days; P = .01) and were more likely to receive treatment with a single class of antibiotic (64% vs 27%; P<.001).
In this study, implementation of a critical pathway reduced the use of institutional resources without causing adverse effects on the well-being of patients.
社区获得性肺炎(CAP)治疗资源的使用在各医院间存在很大差异。缺乏针对CAP诊断和治疗的通用方法被认为是这些差异的一个原因。
确定使用关键路径是否能在不损害患者健康的情况下提高CAP的治疗效率。
多中心对照临床试验,采用整群随机分组,随访长达6周。
加拿大的19家教学医院和社区医院。
1998年1月1日至7月31日期间,在其中一家参与机构的急诊科就诊的1743例CAP患者。
医院被分配继续采用传统管理方式(n = 10)或实施关键路径(n = 9),关键路径包括用于指导入院决策的临床预测规则、左氧氟沙星治疗及实践指南。
通过6周时简短健康调查问卷36项身体状况总结量表(SF - 36 PCS)衡量的与健康相关的生活质量来评估关键路径的有效性;通过每位患者的住院天数(BDPM)来衡量资源利用情况。
两种策略在生活质量、并发症发生率、再入院率和死亡率方面无差异;SF - 36 PCS变化评分的组间差异的单侧95%置信区间为2.4分,在预先定义的3分等效边界内。采用关键路径与BDPM减少1.7天相关(4.4天对6.1天;P = 0.04),低风险患者入院率降低18%(31%对49%;P = 0.01)。尽管关键路径医院的住院患者病情更严重,但他们所需的静脉治疗天数少1.7天(4.6天对6.3天;P = 0.01),且更有可能接受单一类抗生素治疗(64%对27%;P < 0.001)。
在本研究中,实施关键路径减少了机构资源的使用,且未对患者健康造成不利影响。