BACKGROUND: Substantial variability exists in the care of febrile, well-appearing infants. We aimed to assess the impact of a national quality initiative on appropriate hospitalization and length of stay (LOS) in this population. METHODS: The initiative, entitled Reducing Variability in the Infant Sepsis Evaluation (REVISE), was designed to standardize care for well-appearing infants ages 7 to 60 days evaluated for fever without an obvious source. Twelve months of baseline and 12 months of implementation data were collected from emergency departments and inpatient units. Ill-appearing infants and those with comorbid conditions were excluded. Participating sites received change tools, run charts, a mobile application, live webinars, coaching, and a LISTSERV. Analyses were performed via statistical process control charts and interrupted time series regression. The 2 outcome measures were the percentage of hospitalized infants who were evaluated and hospitalized appropriately and the percentage of hospitalized infants who were discharged with an appropriate LOS. RESULTS: In total, 124 hospitals from 38 states provided data on 20 570 infants. The median site improvement in percentages of infants who were evaluated and hospitalized appropriately and in those with appropriate LOS was 5.3% (interquartile range = −2.5% to 13.7%) and 15.5% (interquartile range = 2.9 to 31.3), respectively. Special cause variation toward the target was identified for both measures. There was no change in delayed treatment or missed bacterial infections (slope difference 0.1; 95% confidence interval, −8.3 to 9.1). CONCLUSIONS: Reducing Variability in the Infant Sepsis Evaluation noted improvement in key aspects of febrile infant management. Similar projects may be used to improve care in other clinical conditions.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Children with community-acquired lower respiratory tract infection (CA-LRTI) commonly receive antibiotics for Mycoplasma pneumoniae. The objective was to evaluate the effect of treating M. pneumoniae in children with CA-LRTI. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and bibliography review. A search was conducted by using Medical Subject Headings terms related to CA-LRTI and M. pneumoniae and was not restricted by language. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of children ≤17 years old with confirmed M. pneumoniae and a diagnosis of CA-LRTI; each must have also compared treatment regimens with and without spectrum of activity against M. pneumoniae. Data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently by multiple reviewers before arriving at a consensus. Data were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS: Sixteen articles detailing 17 studies were included. The most commonly selected primary outcome was symptomatic improvement. Nine studies examined M. pneumoniae treatment in CA-LRTI secondary to M. pneumoniae, and 5 RCTs met criteria for meta-analysis. The suggested pooled risk difference of 0.12 (95% confidence interval, −0.04 to 0.20) favoring treatment was not significantly different and demonstrated significant heterogeneity. Limitations included substantial bias and subjective outcomes within the individual studies, difficulty interpreting testing modalities, and the inability to correct for mixed infections or timing of intervention. CONCLUSIONS: We identified insufficient evidence to support or refute treatment of M. pneumoniae in CA-LRTI. These data highlight the need for well-designed, prospective RCTs assessing the effect of treating M. pneumoniae in CA-LRTI.