Atlas S J, Benzer T I, Borowsky L H, Chang Y, Burnham D C, Metlay J P, Halm E A, Singer D E
Medical Practices Evaluation Center and the General Medicine Division, Medical Services, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston 02114, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 1998 Jun 22;158(12):1350-6. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.12.1350.
Patients with community-acquired pneumonia who are at low risk for short-term mortality can be identified using a validated prediction rule, the Pneumonia Severity Index. Such patients should be candidates for outpatient treatment, yet many are hospitalized.
To assess a program to safely increase the proportion of low-risk patients with pneumonia treated at home.
The intervention provided physicians with the Pneumonia Severity Index score and corresponding mortality risk for eligible patients and offered enhanced visiting nurse services and the antibiotic clarithromycin. Prospectively enrolled, consecutive low-risk patients with pneumonia presenting to an emergency department during the intervention period (n = 166) were compared with consecutive retrospective controls (n = 147) identified during the prior year. A second group of 208 patients from the study hospital who participated in the Pneumonia Patient Outcomes Research Team cohort study served as controls for patient-reported measures of recovery.
There were no significant baseline differences between patients in the intervention and control groups. The percentage initially treated as outpatients increased from 42% in the control period to 57% in the intervention period (36% relative increase; 95% confidence interval, 8%-72%; P = .01). However, more outpatients during the intervention period were subsequently admitted to the study hospital (9% vs 0%). When any admission to the study hospital within 4 weeks of presentation was considered, there was a trend toward more patients receiving all their care as outpatients in the intervention group (42% vs 52%; 25% relative increase; 95% confidence interval -2% to 59%; P = .07). No patient in the intervention group died in the 4-week follow-up period. Symptom resolution and functional status were not diminished. Satisfaction with overall care was similar, but patients treated in the outpatient setting during the intervention were less frequently satisfied with the initial treatment location than comparable control patients (71% vs 90%; P = .04).
Use of a risk-based algorithm coupled with enhanced outpatient services effectively identified low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia in the emergency department and safely increased the proportion initially treated as outpatients. Outpatients in the intervention group were more likely to be subsequently admitted than were controls, lessening the net impact of the intervention.
社区获得性肺炎患者中短期死亡风险较低者可通过经过验证的预测规则——肺炎严重程度指数来识别。这类患者应适合门诊治疗,但仍有许多人住院。
评估一项旨在安全提高在家接受治疗的低风险肺炎患者比例的项目。
干预措施为医生提供符合条件患者的肺炎严重程度指数评分及相应死亡风险,并提供强化的访视护士服务和抗生素克拉霉素。将干预期间前瞻性纳入的连续的低风险肺炎急诊患者(n = 166)与前一年确定的连续回顾性对照患者(n = 147)进行比较。研究医院的另一组208名参与肺炎患者结局研究团队队列研究的患者作为患者报告的康复指标的对照。
干预组和对照组患者的基线无显著差异。初始作为门诊治疗的百分比从对照期的42%增至干预期的57%(相对增加36%;95%置信区间,8% - 72%;P = 0.01)。然而,干预期内更多门诊患者随后被收治入研究医院(9%对0%)。当考虑就诊后4周内任何一次入住研究医院时,干预组中更多患者全程作为门诊接受治疗有一定趋势(42%对52%;相对增加25%;95%置信区间 - 2%至59%;P = 0.07)。干预组在4周随访期内无患者死亡。症状缓解和功能状态未降低。对整体护理的满意度相似,但干预期间在门诊环境接受治疗的患者对初始治疗地点的满意度低于可比的对照患者(71%对90%;P = 0.04)。
使用基于风险的算法并结合强化门诊服务可有效识别急诊科社区获得性肺炎低风险患者,并安全提高初始作为门诊治疗的比例。干预组门诊患者随后被收治的可能性高于对照组,削弱了干预的净影响。