Evidence Hub

Reduction of Inappropriate Antibiotic Use and Improved Outcomes by Implementation of an Algorithm-Based Clinical Guideline for Nonpurulent Skin and Soft Tissue Infections

J. Haran, M. Goulding, Maureen G Campion, G. Scully, Arnav Chandra, R. Goldberg, Allyson Day, Emily McLendon et al.

Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2020

1,360 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Clinicians currently do not reliably adhere to antibiotic treatment guidelines, resulting in unnecessary patient exposure to broad-spectrum antimicrobials. Our objective is to determine whether a treatment intervention for the management of nonpurulent skin and soft tissue infections increases clinician adherence and improves patient outcomes.

METHODS

Between January 1 and December 31, 2017, patients presenting to 2 emergency departments (EDs) and who had received a diagnosis of a nonpurulent skin and soft tissue infection were enrolled and assigned to a pre- or postintervention cohort with a treatment intervention implemented on June 1. Primary outcomes were percentage of ED providers following the guidelines and percentage of patients admitted to the hospital. Secondary outcomes were patient self-reported treatment failure and hospital readmission.

RESULTS

There were 1,360 patients, 665 in the preintervention and 695 in the postintervention cohorts. After algorithm implementation, guideline adherence increased (43.0% versus 55.1%; P<.001) and number of patients admitted to the hospital declined (36.5% versus 12.0%; P<.001). In addition, patients reported fewer treatment failures (26.8% versus 16.5%; P=.02) and fewer readmissions (22.3% versus 12.7%; P=.013). After multivariate adjustment, guideline adherence increased by 22% (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 1.37), whereas hospital admissions were reduced by 26%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,360 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free