首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >A controlled trial of a critical pathway for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. CAPITAL Study Investigators. Community-Acquired Pneumonia Intervention Trial Assessing Levofloxacin.
【24h】

A controlled trial of a critical pathway for treatment of community-acquired pneumonia. CAPITAL Study Investigators. Community-Acquired Pneumonia Intervention Trial Assessing Levofloxacin.

机译:社区获得性肺炎治疗关键途径的对照试验。基本研究人员。评估左氧氟沙星的社区获得性肺炎干预试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

CONTEXT: 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. OBJECTIVE: To determine if use of a critical pathway improves the efficiency of treatment for CAP without compromising the well-being of patients. DESIGN: Multicenter controlled clinical trial with cluster randomization and up to 6 weeks of follow-up. SETTING: Nineteen teaching and community hospitals in Canada. PATIENTS: 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. INTERVENTION: 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. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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). RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: In this study, implementation of a critical pathway reduced the use of institutional resources without causing adverse effects on the well-being of patients.
机译:背景:各医院在社区获得性肺炎(CAP)治疗资源的使用上存在很大差异。缺乏诊断和治疗CAP的通用方法已被作为这些变异的解释。目的:确定关键途径的使用是否可以在不损害患者福祉的情况下提高CAP的治疗效率。设计:多中心对照临床试验,随机分组,长达6周的随访。地点:加拿大的19家教学医院和社区医院。患者:1998年1月1日至7月31日期间,共有1743名CAP患者在参与机构的1个急诊科就诊。干预:分配医院继续常规治疗(n = 10)或实施关键途径(n = 9),其中包括指导入院决定,左氧氟沙星治疗和实践指南的临床预测规则。主要观察指标:关键途径的有效性,通过与健康相关的生活质量在6周的36型身体简短摘要(SF-36 PCS)量表上进行衡量;和资源利用率,以每位患者管理的卧床天数(BDPM)来衡量。结果:两种策略的生活质量以及并发症,再入院率和死亡率的发生率均无差异。 SF-36 PCS变化评分的组间差异的一侧95%置信限是2.4点,这在等价的预定义3点边界内。通路使用与BDPM减少1.7天(4.4天对6.1天; P = .04)和低危患者入院减少18%(31%对49%; P = 0.01)有关。尽管关键通路医院的患者病情更为严重,但他们需要静脉注射治疗的时间减少了1.7天(4.6 vs 6.3天; P = .01),并且更有可能接受单一类抗生素的治疗(64%vs 27%; 64%vs 27%)。 P <.001)。结论:在这项研究中,关键途径的实施减少了机构资源的使用,而不会对患者的健康造成不利影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号