Objective: To determine whether community management of mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is as effective and acceptable as standard hospital management of CAP.
Design: Randomised controlled trial.
Setting: Christchurch, New Zealand, primary and secondary care.
Participants: 55 patients presenting or referred to the emergency department at Christchurch Hospital with mild to moderately severe pneumonia, assessed using a validated pneumonia severity assessment score, from July 2002 to October 2003.
Interventions: Hospital treatment as usual or comprehensive care in the home delivered by primary care teams.
Main outcome measures: Primary: days to discharge, days on intravenous (IV) antibiotics, patient-rated symptom scores. Secondary: health status measured using level of functioning at 2 and 6 weeks, patient satisfaction.
Results: The median number of days to discharge was higher in the home care group (4 days; range, 1–14) than in the hospital groups (2 days; range, 0–10; P = 0.004). There was no difference in the number of days on IV antibiotics or on subsequent oral antibiotics. Patient-rated symptom scores at 2 and 6 weeks, median change in symptom severity from baseline to 6 weeks, and general functioning at 2 and 6 weeks did not differ between the groups. Patients in both groups were satisfied with their treatment, with a clear preference for community treatment (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Mild to moderately severe CAP can be managed effectively in the community by primary care teams. This model of comprehensive care at home can be implemented by primary care teams with suitable funding structures.
- 1. Neill A, Martin I, Weir R, et al. Community acquired pneumonia: aetiology and usefulness of severity criteria on admission. Thorax 1996; 51: 1010-1016.
- 2. Caplan GA, Ward JA, Brennan NJ, et al. Hospital in the home: a randomised controlled trial. Med J Aust 1999; 170: 156-160. <MJA full text>
- 3. Grayson ML. Home intravenous antibiotic therapy. A safe and effective alternative to inpatient care. Med J Aust 1995; 162: 249-253.
- 4. Montalto M. Patients’ and carers’ satisfaction with hospital-in-the-home care. Int J Qual Health Care 1996; 8: 243-251.
- 5. Howden BP, Grayson ML. Hospital-in-the-home treatment of infectious diseases. Med J Aust 2002; 176: 440-445. <MJA full text>
- 6. Carratala J, Fernandez-Sabe N, Ortega L, et al. Outpatient care compared with hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized trial in low-risk patients. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 165-172.
- 7. Lim WS, van der Eerden MM, Laing R, et al. Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax 2003; 58: 377-382.
- 8. Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D, et al. A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? J Public Health Med 1997; 19: 179-186.
- 9. Board N, Breenan NJ, Caplan GA. A randomised controlled trial of the costs of hospital as compared with hospital in the home for acute medical patients. Aust N Z J Public Health 2000; 24: 305-311.
- 10. Grayson ML. Hospital in the home development project. Development of Victorian disease-specific guidelines for hospital in the home (HITH). Final report. Melbourne: Monash Medical Centre, 1999.
- 11. Metlay JP, Fine MJ, Schultz R, et al. Measuring symptomatic and functional recovery in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. J Gen Intern Med 1997; 12: 423-430.
- 12. Folland S, Goodman AC, Stano M. Government regulation — principal regulatory mechanisms. In: The economics of health and health care. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2001.
- 13. Corwin P, Toop L, McGeoch G, et al. Randomised controlled trial of intravenous antibiotic treatment for cellulitis at home compared with hospital. BMJ 2005; 330: 129-132.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.