Guideline Title
Clinical policy: critical issues in the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with community-acquired pneumonia.
Bibliographic Source(s)
Nazarian DJ, Eddy OL, Lukens TW, Weingart SD, Decker WW, American College of Emergency Physicians. Clinical policy: critical issues in the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med 2009 Nov;54(5):704-31. [57 references] PubMed |
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
This guideline updates a previous version: American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). Clinical policy for the management and risk stratification of community-acquired pneumonia in adults in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2001 Jul;38(1):107-13. [38 references]
UMLS Concepts ( what's this?)
Click to view all guideline(s) indexed with these concepts
Hide...
|
Disease/Condition(s)
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)
Guideline Category
Diagnosis
Evaluation
Management
Treatment
Clinical Specialty
Emergency Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Internal Medicine
Pulmonary Medicine
Intended Users
Physicians
Guideline Objective(s)
- To update the 2001 American College of Emergency Physicians clinical policy for the management and risk stratification of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)
- To derive evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians answer the following 2 questions:
- Are routine blood cultures indicated in patients admitted with CAP?
- In adult patients with CAP without severe sepsis, is there a benefit in mortality or morbidity from the administration of antibiotics within a specific time course?
Target Population
Patients 18 years of age or older with signs and symptoms of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and radiographic evidence of pneumonia
Note: These guideline is not intended for patients who are pregnant, or immunocompromised (including patients with human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), organ transplant, or recipients of corticosteroids, antineoplastic therapy, or other immunosuppressive agents), or have been hospitalized within the last 30 days.
Interventions and Practices Considered
Diagnosis/Evaluation
Obtaining blood cultures in higher-risk patients (e.g., patients with severe pneumonia, those immunocompromised, or with other significant comorbidities)
Note: Routine blood cultures are not recommended.
Treatment
Administration of antibiotic therapy as soon as feasible once the diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is established
Major Outcomes Considered
- Morbidity
- 30-day and in-hospital mortality
- Length of hospital stay
- Time to clinical stability
- Rates of true-positive and false-positive blood cultures
|
Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Primary Sources)
Hand-searches of Published Literature (Secondary Sources)
Searches of Electronic Databases
Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence
Multiple searches of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and the Cochrane database were performed. Specific key words/phrases used in the searches are identified under each critical question. All searches were limited to English-language sources, human studies, and adults. Additional articles were reviewed from the bibliography of articles cited and from published textbooks and review articles. Subcommittee members supplied articles from their own files, and more recent articles identified during the process were also included.
See the original guideline document for words/phrases for literature searches associated with each clinical question reproduced in the "Guideline Objectives" field.
Number of Source Documents
Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence
Expert Consensus
Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence
Strength of Evidence
Literature Classification Schema^
Design/
Class |
Therapy* |
Diagnosis** |
Prognosis*** |
1 |
Randomized, controlled trial or meta-analyses of randomized trials |
Prospective cohort using a criterion standard |
Population prospective cohort |
2 |
Nonrandomized trial |
Retrospective observational |
Retrospective cohort
Case control |
3 |
Case series
Case report
Other (e.g., consensus, review) |
Case series
Case report
Other (e.g., consensus, review) |
Case series
Case report
Other (e.g., consensus, review) |
^Some designs (e.g., surveys) will not fit this schema and should be assessed individually.
*Objective is to measure therapeutic efficacy comparing ≥2 interventions.
**Objective is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests.
***Objective is to predict outcome including mortality and morbidity.
Approach to Downgrading Strength of Evidence*
|
Design/Class |
Downgrading |
1 |
2 |
3 |
None |
I |
II |
III |
1 level |
II |
III |
X |
2 levels |
III |
X |
X |
Fatally flawed |
X |
X |
X |
*See "Description of Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence" field for more information.
Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
Systematic Review with Evidence Tables
Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence
This clinical policy was created after careful review and critical analysis of the medical literature.
All articles used in the formulation of this clinical policy were graded by at least 2 subcommittee members for strength of evidence and classified by the subcommittee members into 3 classes of evidence on the basis of the design of the study, with design 1 representing the strongest evidence and design 3 representing the weakest evidence for therapeutic, diagnostic, and prognostic clinical reports, respectively (see the "Rating Scheme for the Strength of Evidence" field). Articles were then graded on 6 dimensions thought to be most relevant to the development of a clinical guideline: blinded versus nonblinded outcome assessment, blinded or randomized allocation, direct or indirect outcome measures (reliability and validity), biases (e.g., selection, detection, transfer), external validity (i.e., generalizability), and sufficient sample size. Articles received a final grade (Class I, II, III) on the basis of a predetermined formula, taking into account design and quality of study (see the "Rating Scheme for the Strength of Evidence" field). Articles with fatal flaws were given an "X" grade and not used in formulating recommendations in this policy. Evidence grading was done with respect to the specific data being extracted and the specific critical question being reviewed. Thus, the level of evidence for any one study may vary according to the question, and it is possible for a single article to receive different levels of grading as different critical questions are answered. Question-specific level of evidence grading may be found in the Evidentiary Table included at the end of original guideline document.
Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
Expert Consensus
Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations
This policy is a product of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) clinical policy development process, including expert review, and is based on the existing literature; when literature was not available, consensus of emergency physicians was used.
Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations
Clinical findings and strength of recommendations regarding patient management were made according to the following criteria:
Strength of Recommendations
Level A recommendations. Generally accepted principles for patient management that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty (i.e., based on "strength of evidence Class I" or overwhelming evidence from "strength of evidence Class II" studies that directly address all the issues).
Level B recommendations. Recommendations for patient management that may identify a particular strategy or range of management strategies that reflect moderate clinical certainty (i.e., based on "strength of evidence Class II" studies that directly address the issue, decision analysis that directly addresses the issue, or strong consensus of "strength of evidence Class III" studies).
Level C recommendations. Other strategies for patient management based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or, in the absence of any published literature, based on panel consensus.
There are certain circumstances in which the recommendations stemming from a body of evidence should not be rated as highly as the individual studies on which they are based. Factors such as heterogeneity of results, uncertainty about effect magnitude and consequences, strength of prior beliefs, and publication bias, among others, might lead to such a downgrading of recommendations.
Cost Analysis
A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.
Method of Guideline Validation
External Peer Review
Internal Peer Review
Description of Method of Guideline Validation
Expert review comments were received from individual emergency physicians and from individual members of the American College of Chest Physicians, the American College of Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and American College of Emergency Physicians' (ACEP’s) Section on Critical Care Medicine. Their responses were used to further refine and enhance this policy.
The American College of Emergency Physicians Board of Directors approved this guideline on June 23, 2009.
Supported by the Emergency Nurses Association, July 21, 2009.
|
Major Recommendations
Definitions for the strength of evidence (Class I-III) and strength of recommendations (Level A-C) are repeated at the end of the Major Recommendations.
- Are routine blood cultures indicated in patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?
Patient Management Recommendations
Level A recommendations. None specified.
Level B recommendations. Do not routinely obtain blood cultures in patients admitted with CAP.
Level C recommendations. Consider obtaining blood cultures in higher-risk patients admitted with CAP (e.g., severe disease, immunocompromise, significant comorbidities, or other risk factors for infection with resistant organisms).
- In adult patients with CAP without severe sepsis, is there a benefit in mortality or morbidity from the administration of antibiotics within a specific time course?
Patient Management Recommendations
Level A recommendations. None specified.
Level B recommendations. There is insufficient evidence to establish a benefit in mortality or morbidity from antibiotics administered in less than 4, 6, or 8 hours from emergency department (ED) arrival.
Level C recommendations. Administer antibiotics as soon as feasible once the diagnosis of CAP is established; there is insufficient evidence to establish a benefit in morbidity or mortality from antibiotics administered within any specific time course.
Definitions:
Strength of Evidence
Literature Classification Schema^
Design/
Class |
Therapy* |
Diagnosis** |
Prognosis*** |
1 |
Randomized, controlled trial or meta-analyses of randomized trials |
Prospective cohort using a criterion standard |
Population prospective cohort |
2 |
Nonrandomized trial |
Retrospective observational |
Retrospective cohort
Case control |
3 |
Case series
Case report
Other (e.g., consensus, review) |
Case series
Case report
Other (e.g., consensus, review) |
Case series
Case report
Other (e.g., consensus, review) |
^Some designs (e.g., surveys) will not fit this schema and should be assessed individually.
*Objective is to measure therapeutic efficacy comparing ≥2 interventions.
**Objective is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests.
***Objective is to predict outcome including mortality and morbidity.
Approach to Downgrading Strength of Evidence*
|
Design/Class |
Downgrading |
1 |
2 |
3 |
None |
I |
II |
III |
1 level |
II |
III |
X |
2 levels |
III |
X |
X |
Fatally flawed |
X |
X |
X |
*See "Description of Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence" field for more information.
Grades of Recommendations
Level A recommendations. Generally accepted principles for patient management that reflect a high degree of clinical certainty (i.e., based on "strength of evidence Class I" or overwhelming evidence from "strength of evidence Class II" studies that directly address all the issues).
Level B recommendations. Recommendations for patient management that may identify a particular strategy or range of management strategies that reflect moderate clinical certainty (i.e., based on "strength of evidence Class II" studies that directly address the issue, decision analysis that directly addresses the issue, or strong consensus of "strength of evidence Class III" studies).
Level C recommendations. Other strategies for patient management based on preliminary, inconclusive, or conflicting evidence, or, in the absence of any published literature, based on panel consensus.
There are certain circumstances in which the recommendations stemming from a body of evidence should not be rated as highly as the individual studies on which they are based. Factors such as heterogeneity of results, uncertainty about effect magnitude and consequences, strength of prior beliefs, and publication bias, among others, might lead to such a downgrading of recommendations.
|
Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations
The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see "Major Recommendations").
|
Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations
Potential Benefits
- Appropriate use of blood cultures in patients presenting to the emergency department with community-acquired pneumonia
- Appropriate and timely administration of antibiotics to avoid mistreatment, medication overuse, and increased antibiotic resistance
Potential Harms
Blood culture results may be misleading and may cause unintended consequences. False-positive or contaminated specimens are common, and in some studies, rates of false-positive blood cultures approach those of true-positive. Treatment based on preliminary false-positive blood culture results may lead to unnecessary antibiotic coverage and increased length of stay, pending final identification of the organism.
|
Qualifying Statements
- This policy is not intended to be a complete manual on the evaluation and management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) but rather a focused examination of critical issues that have particular relevance to the current practice of emergency medicine.
- It is the goal of the Clinical Policies Committee to provide an evidence-based recommendation when the medical literature provides enough quality information to answer a critical question. When the medical literature does not contain enough quality information to answer a critical question, the members of the Clinical Policies Committee believe that it is equally important to alert emergency physicians to this fact.
- Recommendations offered in this policy are not intended to represent the only diagnostic and management options that the emergency physician should consider. The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) clearly recognizes the importance of the individual physician’s judgment. Rather, this guideline defines for the physician those strategies for which medical literature exists to provide support for answers to the crucial questions addressed in this policy.
|
Implementation of the Guideline
Description of Implementation Strategy
An implementation strategy was not provided.
Implementation Tools
Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) DownloadsFor information about availability, see the Availability of Companion Documents and Patient Resources fields below.
|
Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories
IOM Care Need
Getting Better
IOM Domain
Effectiveness
Timeliness
|
Identifying Information and Availability
Bibliographic Source(s)
Nazarian DJ, Eddy OL, Lukens TW, Weingart SD, Decker WW, American College of Emergency Physicians. Clinical policy: critical issues in the management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med 2009 Nov;54(5):704-31. [57 references] PubMed |
Adaptation
Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.
Date Released
2001 Jul (revised 2009 Nov)
Guideline Developer(s)
American College of Emergency Physicians - Medical Specialty Society
Source(s) of Funding
American College of Emergency Physicians
Guideline Committee
American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Clinical Policies Subcommittee on Community-acquired Pneumonia
ACEP Clinical Policies Committee
Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline
Members of the Clinical Policies Subcommittee on Community-acquired Pneumonia (Writing Committee): Devorah J. Nazarian, MD, Chair; Orin L. Eddy, MD; Thomas W. Lukens, MD, PhD; Scott D. Weingart, MD; Wyatt W. Decker, MD
Members of the Clinical Policies Committee (Oversight Committee): Wyatt W. Decker, MD (Co-Chair 2006-2007, Chair 2007-2009); Andy S. Jagoda, MD (Chair 2003-2006, Co-Chair 2006-2007); Deborah B. Diercks, MD; Barry M. Diner, MD (Methodologist); Jonathan A. Edlow, MD; Francis M. Fesmire, MD; John T. Finnell, II, MD, MSc (Liaison for Emergency Medical Informatics Section 2004-2006); Steven A. Godwin, MD; Sigrid A. Hahn, MD; John M. Howell, MD; J. Stephen Huff, MD; Eric J. Lavonas, MD; Thomas W. Lukens, MD, PhD; Donna L. Mason, RN, MS, CEN (ENA Representative 2004-2006); Edward Melnick, MD (EMRA Representative 2007-2008); Anthony M. Napoli, MD (EMRA Representative 2004-2006); Devorah Nazarian, MD; AnnMarie Papa, RN, MSN, CEN, FAEN (ENA Representative 2007-2009); Jim Richmann, RN, BS, MA(c), CEN (ENA Representative 2006-2007); Scott M. Silvers, MD; Edward P. Sloan, MD, MPH; Molly E. W. Thiessen, MD (EMRA Representative 2006-2008); Robert L. Wears, MD, MS (Methodologist); Stephen J. Wolf, MD; Cherri D. Hobgood, MD (Board Liaison 2004-2006); David C. Seaberg, MD, CPE (Board Liaison 2006-2009); Rhonda R. Whitson, RHIA, Staff Liaison, Clinical Policies Committee and Subcommittees
Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest
Relevant industry relationships of subcommittee members: There were no relevant industry relationships disclosed by the subcommittee members.
Relevant industry relationships are those relationships with companies associated with products or services that significantly impact the specific aspect of disease addressed in the critical question.
Guideline Endorser(s)
Emergency Nurses Association - Professional Association
Guideline Status
This is the current release of the guideline.
This guideline updates a previous version: American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP). Clinical policy for the management and risk stratification of community-acquired pneumonia in adults in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2001 Jul;38(1):107-13. [38 references]
Availability of Companion Documents
NGC Status
This NGC summary was completed by ECRI on January 29, 2003. The information was verified by the guideline developer on March 13, 2003. This NGC summary was updated by ECRI Institute on January 19, 2010. The information was verified by the guideline developer on February 9, 2010.
|
NGC Disclaimer
The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site. Read full disclaimer...The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.
All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.
Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion-criteria.aspx.
NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.
Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer. Hide...
|