| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
Context
Content
Implications
The Editors
Author and Article Information
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. 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
![]()
![]()
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
Additional articles abstracted in ACP Journal Club Evid. Based Med., June 1, 2006; 11(3): 94 - 94. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
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] |
||||
![]() |
Guideline Implementation: Getting What You Pay For Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, February 14, 2006; 2006(214): 9 - 9. [Full Text] |
||||