Annals
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians
:
Advanced search
 
box Article
 arrow  Table of Contents                
space
 arrow  Full Text of this article
space
 arrow  PDF of this article
(PDFs free after 6 months)
space
 arrow  Summary for Patients
space
 arrow  Summary for Patients (PDF)
space
 arrow  Figures/Tables List
space
 arrow  Related articles in Annals
space
box Services
 arrow  Send comment/rapid response letter
space
 arrow  Notify a friend about this article
space
 arrow  Alert me when this article is cited
space
 arrow  Add to Personal Archive
space
 arrow  Download to Citation Manager
space
 arrow  ACP Search                        
space
 arrow  Get Permissions
space
box Google Scholar
 arrow  Search for Related Content
space
box PubMed
Articles in PubMed by Author:
  arrow  Yealy, D. M.
space
  arrow  Fine, M. J.
space
 arrow  Related Articles in PubMed
space
 arrow  PubMed Citation
space
 arrow  PubMed
space

IMPROVING PATIENT CARE

Improving Patient Care is a special section within Annals supported in part by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the position or endorsement of AHRQ or HHS.

Effect of Increasing the Intensity of Implementing Pneumonia Guidelines

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

right arrow Donald M. Yealy, MD; Thomas E. Auble, PhD; Roslyn A. Stone, PhD; Judith R. Lave, PhD; Thomas P. Meehan, MD, MPH; Louis G. Graff, MD; Jonathan M. Fine, MD; D. Scott Obrosky, MS; Maria K. Mor, PhD; Jeff Whittle, MD, MPH; and Michael J. Fine, MD, MSc*

20 December 2005 | Volume 143 Issue 12 | Pages 881-894

Background: Despite the development of evidence-based pneumonia guidelines, limited data exist on the most effective means to implement guideline recommendations into clinical practice.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 3 guideline implementation strategies.

Design: Cluster-randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: 32 emergency departments in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

Patients: 3219 patients with a clinical and radiographic diagnosis of pneumonia.

Interventions: 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).

Measurements: 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.

Results: 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.

Limitations: Twenty percent of eligible patients were not enrolled, and data on effectiveness outcomes were not collected before the trial.

Conclusions: 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.

*For the names of individuals who served as project coordinators, local study investigators, research staff, and study research nurses, see the Appendix.


Editors' Notes
space

Context

  • The effects of intensified efforts to translate guidelines into practice are poorly understood.

Content

  • Thirty-two emergency departments were randomly assigned to low-intensity, moderate-intensity, and high-intensity strategies for implementing guidelines for community-acquired pneumonia. More low-risk patients were appropriately treated as outpatients in moderate-intensity and high-intensity implementation sites. Adherence to recommended processes of care was better with the high-intensity intervention. Mortality rates, hospitalization after initial outpatient treatment, and inpatient medical complications were similar irrespective of guideline implementation strategy.

Implications

  • The most intense guideline implementation strategy resulted in the highest adherence to recommended processes of care.

—The Editors

 

Author and Article Information
space

From University of Pittsburgh and the Veterans Affairs Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Qualidigm, Middletown, Connecticut; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; New Britain General Hospital, New Britain, Connecticut; Norwalk Hospital, Norwalk, Connecticut; University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut; and Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Administration Medical Center and Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Grant Support: By the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (grant number R01 HS10049). Dr. M.J. Fine received support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant number K24 AI001769).

Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: Consultancies: M.J. Fine (University of Pennsylvania, GeneSoft Pharmaceuticals Inc.); Honoraria: M.J. Fine (Zynx Health Corporation, STA Healthcare Communications Inc., University of Alberta, Maine Medical Center); Expert testimony: M.J. Fine (Stephen Lynn Klein, Kellogg & Siegelman, Swanson, Martin, & Bell, William J. Burke, Chad McGowan, Chernett, Wasserman, Yarger, Pasternak, LLC); Grants received: M.J. Fine (Pfizer Inc.); Royalties: M.J. Fine (Up-to-Date).

Requests for Single Reprints: Michael J. Fine, MD, MSc, Veterans Administration Pittsburgh Healthcare System (151-C-U), Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, University Drive C, Building 28, 1A102, Pittsburgh, PA 15240; e-mail, Michael.Fine{at}va.gov.

Current Author Addresses: Drs. Yealy and Auble: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 230 McKee Place, Suite 500, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

Dr. Stone: Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, Suite 304, Pittsburgh, PA 15261.

Dr. Lave: Department of Health Services Administration, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Room A649, Pittsburgh, PA 15261.

Dr. Meehan: Qualidigm, 100 Roscommon Drive, Middletown, CT 06457.

Dr. Graff: Department of Emergency Medicine, New Britain General Hospital, 100 Grand Street, New Britain, CT 06050.

Dr. J.M. Fine: Norwalk Hospital, Maple Street, Norwalk, CT 06856.

Mr. Obrosky: Veterans Administration Pittsburgh Healthcare System (151-C-U), Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, University Drive C, Suite 1A126, Pittsburgh, PA 15240.

Dr. Mor: Veterans Administration Pittsburgh Healthcare System (151-C-U), Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, University Drive C, Suite 1A110, Pittsburgh, PA 15240.

Dr. Whittle: Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Administration Medical Center (00/PC), 5000 W. National Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53295.

Dr. M.J. Fine: Veterans Administration Pittsburgh Healthcare System (151-C-U), Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, University Drive C, Building 28, Suite 1A102, Pittsburgh, PA 15240.


Related articles in Annals:

Summaries for Patients
Comparison of 3 Strategies To Improve the Care of Patients with Pneumonia Treated in the Emergency Department
Annals 2005 143: I-30. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JAMAHome page
R. Ferrer, A. Artigas, M. M. Levy, J. Blanco, G. Gonzalez-Diaz, J. Garnacho-Montero, J. Ibanez, E. Palencia, M. Quintana, M. V. de la Torre-Prados, et al.
Improvement in Process of Care and Outcome After a Multicenter Severe Sepsis Educational Program in Spain
JAMA, May 21, 2008; 299(19): 2294 - 2303.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Qual Health CareHome page
P.-J. Cortoos, S. Simoens, W. Peetermans, L. Willems, and G. Laekeman
Implementing a hospital guideline on pneumonia: a semi-quantitative review
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, December 1, 2007; 19(6): 358 - 367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
M. Christ-Crain and B. Muller
Biomarkers in respiratory tract infections: diagnostic guides to antibiotic prescription, prognostic markers and mediators
Eur. Respir. J., September 1, 2007; 30(3): 556 - 573.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Intern MedHome page
S. Fishbane, M. S. Niederman, C. Daly, A. Magin, M. Kawabata, A. de Corla-Souza, I. Choudhery, G. Brody, M. Gaffney, S. Pollack, et al.
The Impact of Standardized Order Sets and Intensive Clinical Case Management on Outcomes in Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Arch Intern Med, August 13, 2007; 167(15): 1664 - 1669.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ThoraxHome page
G. Barlow, D. Nathwani, and P. Davey
The CURB65 pneumonia severity score outperforms generic sepsis and early warning scores in predicting mortality in community-acquired pneumonia
Thorax, March 1, 2007; 62(3): 253 - 259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
J. Labarere, R. A. Stone, D. S. Obrosky, D. M. Yealy, T. P. Meehan, J. M. Fine, L. G. Graff, and M. J. Fine
Comparison of Outcomes for Low-Risk Outpatients and Inpatients With Pneumonia: A Propensity-Adjusted Analysis
Chest, February 1, 2007; 131(2): 480 - 488.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
D. T. Huang and D. M. Yealy
Decision Rules and Pneumonia: What Are We "Predicting," and for Whom?
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., December 1, 2006; 174(11): 1169 - 1170.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
P. P. Espana, A. Capelastegui, I. Gorordo, C. Esteban, M. Oribe, M. Ortega, A. Bilbao, and J. M. Quintana
Development and Validation of a Clinical Prediction Rule for Severe Community-acquired Pneumonia
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., December 1, 2006; 174(11): 1249 - 1256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
N. C. Dean, K. A. Bateman, S. M. Donnelly, M. P. Silver, G. L. Snow, and D. Hale
Improved clinical outcomes with utilization of a community-acquired pneumonia guideline.
Chest, September 1, 2006; 130(3): 794 - 799.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Evid. Based Med.Home page
Additional articles abstracted in ACP Journal Club
Evid. Based Med., June 1, 2006; 11(3): 94 - 94.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
T. Dremsizov, G. Clermont, J. A. Kellum, K. G. Kalassian, M. J. Fine, and D. C. Angus
Severe sepsis in community-acquired pneumonia: when does it happen, and do systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria help predict course?
Chest, April 1, 2006; 129(4): 968 - 978.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JWatch Emergency Med.Home page
Guideline Implementation: Getting What You Pay For
Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, February 14, 2006; 2006(214): 9 - 9.
[Full Text]




 Home | Current Issue | Past Issues | In the Clinic | ACP Journal Club | CME | Collections | Audio/Video | Mobile | Subscribe | Tools | Help | ACP Online 

Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Physicians.