Time for first antibiotic dose is not predictive for the early clinical failure of moderate–severe community-acquired pneumonia

The time to first antibiotic dose (TFAD) has been mentioned as an important performance indicator in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, the advice to minimise TFAD to 4 hours (4 h) is only based on database studies. We prospectively studied the effect of minimising the TFAD on the early clinical outcome of moderate–severe CAP. On admission, patients’ medical data and TFAD were recorded. Early clinical failure was expressed as the proportion of patients with clinical instability, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or mortality on day three. Of 166 patients included in the study, 27 patients (29.7%) with TFAD <4 h had early clinical failure compared to 23 patients (37.7%) with TFAD >4 h (odds ratio [OR] 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35–1.35). In multivariate analysis, the pneumonia severity index (OR 1.03; 95%CI 1.01–1.04), confusion (OR 2.63; 95%CI 1.14–6.06), Staphylococcus aureus infection (OR 7.26; 95%CI 1.33–39.69) and multilobar pneumonia (OR 2.40; 95%CI 1.11–5.22) but not TFAD were independently associated with early clinical failure. Clinical parameters on admission other than the TFAD predict early clinical outcome in moderate–severe CAP. In contrast to severe CAP necessitating treatment in the ICU directly, in the case of suspected moderate–severe CAP, there is time to establish a reliable diagnosis of CAP before antibiotics are administered. Therefore, the implementation of the TFAD as a performance indicator is not desirable

What is the value and impact of quality and safety teams? A scoping review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature about the establishment and impact of quality and safety team initiatives in acute care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Studies were identified through electronic searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ABI Inform, Cochrane databases. Grey literature and bibliographies were also searched. Qualitative or quantitative studies that occurred in acute care, describing how quality and safety teams were established or implemented, the impact of teams, or the barriers and/or facilitators of teams were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study design, sample, interventions, and outcomes. Quality assessment of full text articles was done independently by two reviewers. Studies were categorized according to dimensions of quality.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 6,674 articles identified, 99 were included in the study. The heterogeneity of studies and results reported precluded quantitative data analyses. Findings revealed limited information about attributes of successful and unsuccessful team initiatives, barriers and facilitators to team initiatives, unique or combined contribution of selected interventions, or how to effectively establish these teams.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Not unlike systematic reviews of quality improvement collaboratives, this broad review revealed that while teams reported a number of positive results, there are many methodological issues. This study is unique in utilizing traditional quality assessment and more novel methods of quality assessment and reporting of results (SQUIRE) to appraise studies. Rigorous design, evaluation, and reporting of quality and safety team initiatives are required.</p