Reducing costs and hospital stay for pneumonia with home intravenous cefotaxime treatment: results with a computerized ambulatory drug delivery system

Evidence‐based re‐engineering: re‐engineering the evidence

PURPOSE

Business process redesign (BPR) is used to implement organizational transformations towards more customer-focused and cost-effective care. Ideally, these innovations should be carefully described and evaluated so that "best practices" can be re-applied. To investigate this, available evidence was collected on patient care redesign projects.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The Ebsco Business Source Premier, Embase and Medline databases were searched. Studies on innovations related to re-engineering patient care that used before-after design as minimum prerequisites were selected. General characteristics, logistic parameters and other outcome measures to determine the objectives and results and interventions used were looked at.

FINDINGS

A total of 86 studies that conformed to the criteria were found: a minority mentioned measurable parameters in their objectives. In the majority of studies, multiple interventions were combined within single studies, making it impossible to compare the effects of individual interventions. Only three randomized controlled trials were found. Furthermore, inconsistencies were noted between the study objectives and the reported results. Many more issues were reported in the results than were mentioned in the study aims. It would appear that publications were hard to find owing to a lack of specific MeSH headings. Nearly 7,500 abstracts were scanned and from these it was concluded that clear and univocal research methods, terms and reporting guidelines are advisable and must be developed in order to learn and benefit from BPR innovations in health care organizations.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This appears to be the first time available evidence about redesign projects in hospitals has been systematically collected and assessed.

Achieving a safe and early discharge for patients with community-acquired pneumonia

The rationale for achieving an early discharge for patients with CAP is that reduced length of stay can result in lower costs. When hospital discharge is premature, however, use of resources after discharge from the hospital may increase. This situation could increase overall cost and worsen quality of care. The objective should be to achieve a safe and early discharge. Several studies have evaluated methods for achieving this goal. Key findings from these studies are as follows: When a patient achieves clinical stability (e.g., systolic blood pressure, > or = 90 mm Hg; heart rate, < or = 100 beats/min; respiratory rate, < or = 24 breaths/min; temperature, < or = 38.3 degrees C [101 degrees F]; oxygen saturation, > or = 90%; able to eat; and stable mental status) or fulfills appropriate criteria (see Table 2), the patient may be eligible for switch from parenteral to oral antibiotics and early discharge. For many patients, this switch or discharge may occur on day 3 of hospitalization. When a patient is switched from parenteral to oral antibiotics, in many cases there does not appear to be a demonstrable clinical benefit to in-hospital observation. Elimination of in-hospital observation for patients who do not have an obvious reason for continued hospitalization potentially could reduce length of stay by 1 day. Improving efficiency of care reduces length of stay. This reduction may be accomplished by implementing clinical pathways, identifying and correcting causes of medically unnecessary hospital days, initiating early discharge planning, enlisting the services of a discharge coordinator, and organizing outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment programs. These strategies are effective in many but not all patients, and their application should be tempered with careful clinical judgment.

Community-acquired pneumonia

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in all age groups, especially the elderly, which is a patient population that continues to grow. Recently the spectrum and clinical picture of pneumonia has been changing as a reflection of this aging population; this requires a reassessment of and a new approach to the patient with pneumonia. Currently, pneumonia patients are classified as having either community-acquired or hospital-acquired infection rather than typical versus atypical. Patients who have CAP are categorized by age, presence of a coexisting medical illness, and the severity of the pneumonia. The rationale behind categorizing patients is to stratify them in terms of mortality risk to help determine the location of therapy (e.g., outpatient, inpatient, intensive care unit) and focus the choice of initial antimicrobial therapy. Once the decision to hospitalize a patient with pneumonia is made, the next step is to decide on an appropriate diagnostic evaluation and antibiotic therapy. Both decisions have evolved over the last several years since the publication of the American Thoracic Society's CAP guidelines. The current approach to the diagnostic work-up of pneumonia stresses a limited role of diagnostic tests and procedures. The antimicrobial regimen has now evolved into one that is empiric in nature and based on the age of the patient, the presence of coexisting medical disease, and the overall severity of the pneumonia. This process is a dynamic once because bacterial resistance to commonly used antibiotics can further complicate the course of pneumonia therapy, but the impact of resistance on outcome is less clear. Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin is a prime example of this growing problem, and adjustment to pneumonia therapy may be required. A difficult but not uncommon problem in pneumonia patients is slow recovery and delayed resolution of radiographic infiltrates. Factors that impact negatively on pneumonia resolution include advanced age and the presence of serious comorbid illnesses such as diabetes mellitus, renal disease, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, certain organism factors (e.g., intrinsic virulence) may interact with host factors and advanced age to delay pneumonia resolution. For example, 50% of patients with pneumococcal pneumonia have radiographic clearing at 5 weeks, and the majority clear within 2 to 3 months. Recent data demonstrate that radiographic resolution of CAP is most influenced by the number of lobes involved and the age of the patient. Radiographic clearance of CAP decreases by 20% per decade after age 20, and patients with multilobar infiltrates take longer to clear than those with unilobar disease. In general, when approaching slowly resolving infiltrates after pneumonia, bronchoscopic evaluation and lung biopsy are more likely to yield a specific diagnosis if the patient is a nonsmoker younger than 55 years old with multilobar disease. If the patients has either no identifiable factors associated with prolonged pneumonia resolution or the repeat chest radiograph at 1 month shows no appreciable change, further diagnostic testing is indicated. The route and duration of antibiotic therapy, another detail of the management of CAP patients that has changed recently, is complicated by the fact that the majority of patients with CAP have no pathogen identified. Therefore, in most instances the physician initiates empiric antibiotics on the basis of epidemiologic data. If an etiologic pathogen is identified (either initially or at a later time), then the antibiotic spectrum can be narrowed. When no pathogen is discovered, broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics are continued. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Cefotaxime. A reappraisal of its antibacterial activity and pharmacokinetic properties, and a review of its therapeutic efficacy when administered twice daily for the treatment of mild to moderate infections

Cefotaxime is well established as an effective and well tolerated antibacterial drug for 3 times daily parenteral treatment of a variety of moderate to severe infections in hospitalised patients. Its frequency of administration has recently been reassessed with a 12-hourly regimen. Comparative studies in hospitalised patients with nosocomial or community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections, demonstrate the similar clinical and bacteriological efficacy of twice daily cefotaxime 1 or 2 g and the same daily dose of ceftriaxone, usually administered once daily. Cefotaxime 2 g twice daily was also similar in efficacy to ceftriaxone 2 g once daily. Retrospective and post-marketing studies also reveal the similar efficacy of cefotaxime administered twice and 3 times daily, and pharmacoeconomic studies suggest that total direct costs of treatment with cefotaxime compared is similar to that with other third generation cephalosporins in currently used dosage regimens. When administered twice daily, cefotaxime is, thus, an effective antibacterial agent for the treatment of hospitalised patients outside the intensive care unit with a variety of mild to moderate non-CNS infections caused by susceptible organisms. When appropriately administered twice daily there is potential to lower the cost of antibacterial treatment without compromising efficacy.