The American journal of emergency medicine · 2019
Evaluation of an emergency department to outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy program for cellulitis.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yadav Krishan, Suh Kathryn N, Eagles Debra, Thiruganasambandamoorthy Venkatesh, Wells George A, Stiell Ian G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Emergency department (ED) patients with non-purulent skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) requiring intravenous antibiotics may be managed via outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT). Prospective studies describing the performance of an ED-to-OPAT clinic program are lacking. The primary objective was to determine the OPAT treatment failure rate for ED patients with non-purulent SSTIs.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of adults with non-purulent SSTIs managed via an ED-to-OPAT clinic program. OPAT treatment failure was defined as hospitalization after a minimum of 48 h of OPAT for: worsening infection; intravenous line complications; or adverse antibiotic effects. Secondary outcomes were to describe OPAT clinic processes, patient satisfaction, and physician rationale for selecting intravenous antibiotics.
RESULTS: We enrolled a consecutive sample of 153 patients [mean age 60.5 years, 82 male (53.6%)]; 137 patients (89.5%) attended their clinic appointment. OPAT treatment failure was 4.4%. None of the adverse intravenous line (10.9%) and adverse antibiotic (8.0%) events required hospitalization. Patients reported high satisfaction with timeliness of referral (median score 9 out of 10) and overall care received (median score of 10). The top five reasons given by physicians for selecting intravenous therapy were: clinical impression (52.9%); failed oral therapy (41.8%); diabetes (17.6%); severe pain (7.8%); and peripheral vascular disease (7.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study demonstrates that an ED-to-OPAT clinic program for non-purulent SSTIs is safe, has a low rate of treatment failures and results in high patient satisfaction. The rationale for selecting intravenous antibiotics showed significant variability among ED physicians.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of adults with non-purulent SSTIs managed via an ED-to-OPAT clinic program. OPAT treatment failure was defined as hospitalization after a minimum of 48 h of OPAT for: worsening infection; intravenous line complications; or adverse antibiotic effects. Secondary outcomes were to describe OPAT clinic processes, patient satisfaction, and physician rationale for selecting intravenous antibiotics.
RESULTS: We enrolled a consecutive sample of 153 patients [mean age 60.5 years, 82 male (53.6%)]; 137 patients (89.5%) attended their clinic appointment. OPAT treatment failure was 4.4%. None of the adverse intravenous line (10.9%) and adverse antibiotic (8.0%) events required hospitalization. Patients reported high satisfaction with timeliness of referral (median score 9 out of 10) and overall care received (median score of 10). The top five reasons given by physicians for selecting intravenous therapy were: clinical impression (52.9%); failed oral therapy (41.8%); diabetes (17.6%); severe pain (7.8%); and peripheral vascular disease (7.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study demonstrates that an ED-to-OPAT clinic program for non-purulent SSTIs is safe, has a low rate of treatment failures and results in high patient satisfaction. The rationale for selecting intravenous antibiotics showed significant variability among ED physicians.