BACKGROUND: Although the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) has been extensively validated, little is known of the impact of its routine use as an aid to site-of-treatment decisions for patients with pneumonia who present to emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: A prospective, observational, controlled cohort study of patients with pneumonia was conducted in 8 EDs that used the PSI (PSI-user EDs) and 8 EDs that did not use the PSI (PSI-nonuser EDs) in France. The outcomes examined included the proportion of "low-risk" patients (PSI risk classes I-III) treated as outpatients, all-cause 28-day mortality, admission of inpatients to the intensive care unit, and subsequent hospitalization of outpatients. RESULTS: Of the 925 patients enrolled in the study, 472 (51.0%) were treated at PSI-user EDs, and 453 (49.0%) were treated at PSI-nonuser EDs; 449 (48.5%) of all patients were considered to be at low risk. In PSI-user EDs, 92 (42.8%) of 215 patients at low risk were treated as outpatients, compared with 56 (23.9%) of 234 patients at low risk in PSI-nonuser EDs. The adjusted odds ratios for outpatient treatment were higher for patients in PSI risk classes I and II who were treated in PSI-user EDs, compared with PSI-nonuser EDs (adjusted odds ratio, 7.0 [95% confidence interval, 2.0-25.0] and 4.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-16.2], respectively), whereas the adjusted odds ratio did not differ by PSI-user status among patients in risk class III or among patients at high risk. After adjusting for pneumonia severity, mortality was lower in patients who were treated in PSI-user EDs; other safety outcomes did not differ between patients treated in PSI-user and PSI-nonuser EDs. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of the PSI was associated with a larger proportion of patients in PSI risk classes I and II who had pneumonia and who were treated in the outpatient environment without compromising their safety.
BACKGROUND: Although the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) has been extensively validated, little is known of the impact of its routine use as an aid to site-of-treatment decisions for patients with pneumonia who present to emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: A prospective, observational, controlled cohort study of patients with pneumonia was conducted in 8 EDs that used the PSI (PSI-user EDs) and 8 EDs that did not use the PSI (PSI-nonuser EDs) in France. The outcomes examined included the proportion of "low-risk" patients (PSI risk classes I-III) treated as outpatients, all-cause 28-day mortality, admission of inpatients to the intensive care unit, and subsequent hospitalization of outpatients. RESULTS: Of the 925 patients enrolled in the study, 472 (51.0%) were treated at PSI-user EDs, and 453 (49.0%) were treated at PSI-nonuser EDs; 449 (48.5%) of all patients were considered to be at low risk. In PSI-user EDs, 92 (42.8%) of 215 patients at low risk were treated as outpatients, compared with 56 (23.9%) of 234 patients at low risk in PSI-nonuser EDs. The adjusted odds ratios for outpatient treatment were higher for patients in PSI risk classes I and II who were treated in PSI-user EDs, compared with PSI-nonuser EDs (adjusted odds ratio, 7.0 [95% confidence interval, 2.0-25.0] and 4.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-16.2], respectively), whereas the adjusted odds ratio did not differ by PSI-user status among patients in risk class III or among patients at high risk. After adjusting for pneumonia severity, mortality was lower in patients who were treated in PSI-user EDs; other safety outcomes did not differ between patients treated in PSI-user and PSI-nonuser EDs. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of the PSI was associated with a larger proportion of patients in PSI risk classes I and II who had pneumonia and who were treated in the outpatient environment without compromising their safety.
Authors: James D Chalmers; Pallavi Mandal; Aran Singanayagam; Ahsan R Akram; Gourab Choudhury; Philip M Short; Adam T Hill Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-06-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Yann-Erick Claessens; Thierry Mathevon; Gérald Kierzek; Sophie Grabar; David Jegou; Eric Batard; Clarisse Loyer; Alain Davido; Pierre Hausfater; Hélène Robert; Leila Lavagna-Perez; Bruno Bernot; Patrick Plaisance; Christophe Leroy; Bertrand Renaud Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: M H Rozenbaum; P Pechlivanoglou; T S van der Werf; J R Lo-Ten-Foe; M J Postma; E Hak Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: W H Cho; H J Yeo; S H Yoon; S E Lee; D S Jeon; Y S Kim; S J Lee; E J Jo; J H Mok; M H Kim; K U Kim; K Lee; H K Park; M K Lee Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Derek J Williams; Yuwei Zhu; Carlos G Grijalva; Wesley H Self; Frank E Harrell; Carrie Reed; Chris Stockmann; Sandra R Arnold; Krow K Ampofo; Evan J Anderson; Anna M Bramley; Richard G Wunderink; Jonathan A McCullers; Andrew T Pavia; Seema Jain; Kathryn M Edwards Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 7.124