Yealy Donald M, Auble Thomas E, Stone Roslyn A, Lave Judith R, Meehan Thomas P, Graff Louis G, Fine Jonathan M, Obrosky D Scott, Mor Maria K, Whittle Jeff, Fine Michael J
University of Pittsburgh and the Veterans Affairs Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15240, USA.
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Dec 20;143(12):881-94. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-143-12-200512200-00006.
Despite the development of evidence-based pneumonia guidelines, limited data exist on the most effective means to implement guideline recommendations into clinical practice.
To compare the effectiveness and safety of 3 guideline implementation strategies.
Cluster-randomized, controlled trial.
32 emergency departments in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
3219 patients with a clinical and radiographic diagnosis of pneumonia.
The authors implemented a project-developed guideline for the initial site of treatment based on the Pneumonia Severity Index and performance of evidence-based processes of care at the emergency department level. Guideline implementation strategies were defined as low (n = 8), moderate (n = 12), and high intensity (n = 12).
Effectiveness outcomes were the rate at which low-risk patients were treated on an outpatient basis and the performance of recommended processes of care. Safety outcomes included death, subsequent hospitalization for outpatients, and medical complications for inpatients.
More low-risk patients (n = 1901) were treated as outpatients in the moderate-intensity and high-intensity groups than in the low-intensity group (high-intensity group, 61.9%; moderate-intensity group, 61.0%; low-intensity group, 37.5%; P = 0.004). More outpatients (n = 1125) in the high-intensity group received all 4 recommended processes of care (high-intensity group, 60.9%; moderate-intensity group, 28.3%; low-intensity group, 25.3%; P < 0.001); more inpatients (n = 2076) in the high-intensity group received all 4 recommended processes of care (high-intensity group, 44.3%; moderate-intensity group, 30.1%; low-intensity group, 23.0%; P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences in safety outcomes were observed across interventions.
Twenty percent of eligible patients were not enrolled, and data on effectiveness outcomes were not collected before the trial.
Both moderate-intensity and high-intensity guideline implementation strategies safely increased the proportion of low-risk patients with pneumonia who were treated as outpatients. The high-intensity strategy was most effective for increasing the performance of the recommended processes of care for outpatients and inpatients.
尽管循证肺炎指南已得到发展,但关于将指南建议有效应用于临床实践的方法的数据有限。
比较3种指南实施策略的有效性和安全性。
整群随机对照试验。
宾夕法尼亚州和康涅狄格州的32个急诊科。
3219例临床和影像学诊断为肺炎的患者。
作者基于肺炎严重程度指数和急诊科层面循证医疗流程的执行情况,实施了一个项目制定的关于初始治疗地点的指南。指南实施策略分为低强度(n = 8)、中等强度(n = 12)和高强度(n = 12)。
有效性指标为低风险患者门诊治疗率和推荐医疗流程的执行情况。安全性指标包括死亡、门诊患者随后的住院情况以及住院患者的医疗并发症。
中等强度组和高强度组中作为门诊治疗的低风险患者(n = 1901)多于低强度组(高强度组为61.9%;中等强度组为61.0%;低强度组为37.5%;P = 0.004)。高强度组中更多门诊患者(n = 1125)接受了所有4项推荐的医疗流程(高强度组为60.9%;中等强度组为28.3%;低强度组为25.3%;P < 0.001);高强度组中更多住院患者(n = 2076)接受了所有4项推荐的医疗流程(高强度组为44.3%;中等强度组为30.1%;低强度组为23.0%;P < 0.001)。各干预措施在安全性指标上未观察到统计学显著差异。
20%的符合条件患者未纳入研究,且在试验前未收集有效性指标数据。
中等强度和高强度的指南实施策略均安全地提高了肺炎低风险患者门诊治疗的比例。高强度策略在提高门诊和住院患者推荐医疗流程的执行情况方面最为有效。