STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a multifactorial intervention to improve the quality, efficiency, and patient understanding of care for community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN: Times series cohort study. SETTING: Four academic health centers in the New York City metropolitan area. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive adults hospitalized for pneumonia during a 5-month period before (n = 1,013) and after (n = 1,081) implementation of an inpatient quality improvement (QI) initiative. INTERVENTIONS: A multidisciplinary team of opinion leaders developed evidence-based treatment guidelines and critical pathways, conducted educational sessions with physicians, distributed pocket reminder cards, promoted standardized orders, and developed bilingual patient education materials. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The average age was 71.4 years, and 44.1% of cases were low risk, 36.8% were moderate risk, and 19.2% were high risk. The preintervention and postintervention groups were well matched on age, sex, race, nursing home residence, pneumonia severity, initial presentation, and most major comorbidities. The intervention increased the use of guideline-recommended antimicrobial therapy from 78.1 to 83.4% (p = 0.003). There was also a borderline decrease in the proportion of patients being discharged prior to becoming clinically stable, from 27.0 to 23.5% (p = 0.06). However, there were no improvements in the other targeted indicators, including time to first dose of antibiotics, proportion receiving antibiotics within 8 h, timely switch to oral antibiotics, timely discharge, length of stay, or patient education outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world QI program was able to improve modestly on some quality indicators, but not effect resource use or patient knowledge of their disease. Changing physician and organizational behavior in academic health centers will require the development and implementation of more intensive, system-oriented strategies.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a multifactorial intervention to improve the quality, efficiency, and patient understanding of care for community-acquired pneumonia. DESIGN: Times series cohort study. SETTING: Four academic health centers in the New York City metropolitan area. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive adults hospitalized for pneumonia during a 5-month period before (n = 1,013) and after (n = 1,081) implementation of an inpatient quality improvement (QI) initiative. INTERVENTIONS: A multidisciplinary team of opinion leaders developed evidence-based treatment guidelines and critical pathways, conducted educational sessions with physicians, distributed pocket reminder cards, promoted standardized orders, and developed bilingual patient education materials. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The average age was 71.4 years, and 44.1% of cases were low risk, 36.8% were moderate risk, and 19.2% were high risk. The preintervention and postintervention groups were well matched on age, sex, race, nursing home residence, pneumonia severity, initial presentation, and most major comorbidities. The intervention increased the use of guideline-recommended antimicrobial therapy from 78.1 to 83.4% (p = 0.003). There was also a borderline decrease in the proportion of patients being discharged prior to becoming clinically stable, from 27.0 to 23.5% (p = 0.06). However, there were no improvements in the other targeted indicators, including time to first dose of antibiotics, proportion receiving antibiotics within 8 h, timely switch to oral antibiotics, timely discharge, length of stay, or patient education outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world QI program was able to improve modestly on some quality indicators, but not effect resource use or patient knowledge of their disease. Changing physician and organizational behavior in academic health centers will require the development and implementation of more intensive, system-oriented strategies.
Authors: M J Fine; J J Orloff; D Arisumi; G D Fang; V C Arena; B H Hanusa; V L Yu; D E Singer; W N Kapoor Journal: Am J Med Date: 1990-05 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: S F Jencks; T Cuerdon; D R Burwen; B Fleming; P M Houck; A E Kussmaul; D S Nilasena; D L Ordin; D R Arday Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-10-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bryan J Weiner; Jeffrey A Alexander; Stephen M Shortell; Laurence C Baker; Mark Becker; Jeffrey J Geppert Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Lionel A Mandell; Richard G Wunderink; Antonio Anzueto; John G Bartlett; G Douglas Campbell; Nathan C Dean; Scott F Dowell; Thomas M File; Daniel M Musher; Michael S Niederman; Antonio Torres; Cynthia G Whitney Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Jeroen A Schouten; Marlies E J L Hulscher; Stephanie Natsch; Bart-Jan Kullberg; Jos W M van der Meer; Richard P T M Grol Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2007-04
Authors: Douglas J Hsu; Roslyn A Stone; D Scott Obrosky; Donald M Yealy; Thomas P Meehan; Jonathan M Fine; Louis G Graff; Michael J Fine Journal: Am J Med Sci Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.378
Authors: Nathan C Dean; Jason P Jones; Dominik Aronsky; Samuel Brown; Caroline G Vines; Barbara E Jones; Todd Allen Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Peter Davey; Charis A Marwick; Claire L Scott; Esmita Charani; Kirsty McNeil; Erwin Brown; Ian M Gould; Craig R Ramsay; Susan Michie Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-02-09
Authors: Deborah E White; Sharon E Straus; H Tom Stelfox; Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc; Chaim M Bell; Karen Jackson; Jill M Norris; W Ward Flemons; Michael E Moffatt; Alan J Forster Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-08-23 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Mary C Conry; Niamh Humphries; Karen Morgan; Yvonne McGowan; Anthony Montgomery; Kavita Vedhara; Efharis Panagopoulou; Hannah Mc Gee Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 2.655