[Curbside consultation: another healthcare activity of the infectious disease specialist]

[The referral of infectious diseases is a key activity for infectious diseases departments and units, as well as for the hospital]

Infectious diseases referrals (IDR) is a core activity of infectious diseases departments, and is certainly the one with the greatest potential impact on the hospital due to their cross-sectional nature, and with the emergence of a bacterial resistance and antimicrobial crisis. However, there is no standard model for IDR, no official training, and evaluation is merely descriptive. Paradoxically IDR are at risk in a health system that demands more quality and efficiency. The aim of this review is to assess what is known about IDR, its definition, key features, objectives, method, and the evaluation of results, and to suggest improvements to this key activity for the infectious diseases departments and the hospital.

Infectious Disease Consultation for Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia Improves Patient Management and Outcomes

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is a common, severe infectious disease with accepted standards of care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all 233 SAB cases at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MVAMC) between October 2004 and February 2008 was performed to measure the impact of Infectious Disease (ID) consultation on conformance to standards and patient outcomes. Outcomes were classified as survived without relapse, relapsed, or died without relapse. ID involvement was classified as consultation, curbside, or no involvement. RESULTS: ID involvement occurred in 179/233 cases (77%). Management conformed to accepted standards in 162/197 cases (82%) evaluable for conformance. ID involvement was associated with increased conformance in univariable analysis and multivariable analysis adjusted for propensity for ID consultation (OR 5.9, 95% CI 2.5 - 13.8). Relapse occurred in 14/156 cases (9%) in which therapy conformed to standards compared with 8/35 cases (23%) in which therapy did not conform to standards (p=0.045). Relapse was more common in older patients (OR 1.05, CI 1.01-1.09) and in cases without ID involvement (OR 3.02, CI 1.003-9.1). Death was associated with greater Charlson Index scores (OR 1.89, CI 1.4-2.5). Of 111 cases with definitely or possibly infected devices, relapse occurred in 9/92 cases (9.8%) in which the device was wholly or partially removed compared with 6/19 cases (32%) in which the device was left in place (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: ID involvement in SAB cases was associated with increased adherence to accepted standards and fewer relapses. ID consultation should be performed for all SAB cases.