Abstract
Evaluations of care strategies for patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) tend to focus more on their necessity (variation in practice...) than on efficacy (adherence, impact of markers of disease severity or medico-economic factors...). A number of studies are reported in the literature based on a simple evaluation of practice at a given moment on time or else on the impact of guidelines. These evaluations relate either to outcome criteria (mortality, and duration of stay especially) or the economic impact of CAP (rate of hospitalization, duration of stay, costs of the treatments or hospitalizations...), or on process of care (evaluation of initial severity, delay in administration of antibiotics, appropriateness of antibiotic therapy, evaluation of oxygenation and taking of specimens prior to treatment). Taken together these studies demonstrate the need to improve and standardise care. Where studies have not found a benefit from guidelines this can often be attributed to problems with assessment or study design and there are many studies showing the benefit of guideline based management and the introduction of standardised care pathways.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.