Comparison of specialist and generalist care.

Objective The choice of whether to admit under a specialist or a generalist unit is often made with neither clear rationale nor understanding of its consequences. The present study compared the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia to either a general medicine or respiratory unit. Methods This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study using data from public hospitals in Adelaide, South Australia. Over 5 years there were 9775 overnight, unplanned appropriate adult admissions. Patient length of hospital stay, in-patient mortality rate and 30-day unplanned readmission rate were calculated, with and without adjustment for patient age and comorbidity burden. Results Over 80% of these patients were cared for by a general medicine unit rather than a specialist unit. Patients admitted to a general medicine unit were, on average, 4 years older than those admitted to a respiratory unit. Comorbidity burdens were similar between units at the same hospital. Length of in-patient stay was >1 day shorter for those admitted to a general medicine unit, without significant compromise in mortality or readmission rates. Between each hospital, general medicine units showed a range of mortality rates and length of hospital stay, for which there was no obvious explanation. Conclusions Compared with speciality care, general medicine units can safely and efficiently care for patients presenting to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia. What is known about the topic? Within the narrow range of any specific disease, generalist medical services are often cited as inferior in performance compared with a speciality service. This has implications for hospital resourcing, including both staffing and ward allocation. What does this paper add? This paper demonstrates that most patients admitted with a principal diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia were admitted to a generalist unit and did not apparently fare worse than patients admitted to a specialist service; patients admitted to a generalist unit spent less time in hospital and there was no difference in mortality or readmission rate compared with patients admitted to a specialist service. What are the implications for practitioners? The provision of generalist services at urban hospitals in Australia provides a safe alternative admission option for patients presenting with pneumonia, and possibly for other common acute medical conditions.

Variability in inpatient serum creatinine: its impact upon short- and long-term mortality.

BACKGROUND: Long-staying medical inpatients carry a significant burden of acute and chronic illness. Prediction of their in-hospital and longer-term mortality risk is important. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine to what extent creatinine variability predicts in-hospital and 1-year mortality in inpatients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. METHODS: Patients were included if aged 18 years or older and if admitted for 7 days or longer. The main outcome variables were mortality in hospital and after discharge. RESULTS: Increasing age, the presence of heart failure and a reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) on admission (<60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) all associated with death risk (both in hospital and within a year of discharge). The creatinine change was related to mortality risk for the patient whilst in hospital and within 1 year after discharge independently of these other factors. The threshold of creatinine change, above which the in-hospital mortality rose significantly was 25 µmol/l (P < 0.001). A creatinine change of >10 µmol/l predicted significantly higher mortality within a year of discharge (P < 0.001). Every 5 µmol/l change in creatinine was associated with an in-hospital mortality increase of 3% (P < 0.001) and a 1-year mortality increase of 1% (P < 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a creatinine rise or fall of >10 µmol/l during admission are at higher risk of death after discharge than those with more stable creatinine. These patients therefore merit further attention that might include more focused nutritional assessment, cardiovascular risk factor management or advance care planning.