Chayan Chakraborti, MD

The structure and function of academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) has evolved significantly with the growth of hospital medicine.[1, 2, 3, 4] Many AHPs formed in response to regulatory and financial changes, which drove demand for increased trainee oversight, improved clinical efficiency, and growth in nonteaching services staffed by hospitalists. Differences in local organizational contexts and needs have contributed to great variability in AHP program design and operations. As AHPs have become more established, the need to engage academic hospitalists in scholarship and activities that support professional development and promotion has been recognized. Defining sustainable and successful positions for academic hospitalists is a priority called for by leaders in the field.[5, 6]

In this rapidly evolving context, AHPs have employed a variety of approaches to organizing clinical and academic faculty roles, without guiding evidence or consensus‐based performance benchmarks. A number of AHPs have achieved success along traditional academic metrics of research, scholarship, and education. Currently, it is not known whether specific approaches to AHP organization, structure, or definition of faculty roles are associated with achievement of more traditional markers of academic success.

The Academic Committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), and the Academic Hospitalist Task Force of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) had separately initiated projects to explore characteristics associated with success in AHPs. In 2012, these organizations combined efforts to jointly develop and implement the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research) project. The goals were to identify successful AHPs using objective criteria, and to then study those groups in greater detail to generate insights that would be broadly relevant to the field. Efforts to clarify the factors within AHPs linked to success by traditional academic metrics will benefit hospitalists, their leaders, and key stakeholders striving to achieve optimal balance between clinical and academic roles. We describe the initial work of the SCHOLAR project, our definitions of academic success in AHPs, and the characteristics of a cohort of exemplary AHPs who achieved the highest levels on these metrics.

METHODS

RESULTS

Faculty Promotion

Figure 1 demonstrates the proportion of faculty at various academic ranks. The percent of faculty above the rank of assistant professor in the SCHOLAR programs exceeded those in the overall LAHP‐50 by 5% (17.9% vs 12.8%, P = 0.01). Of note, 6% of the hospitalists at AHPs in the SCHOLAR programs were on nonfaculty tracks.

Figure 1

DISCUSSION

Using a definition of academic success that incorporated metrics of grant funding, faculty promotion, and scholarly output, we identified a unique subset of successful AHPsthe SCHOLAR cohort. The programs represented in the SCHOLAR cohort were generally large and relatively mature. Despite this, the cohort consisted of mostly junior faculty, had a paucity of fellowship‐trained hospitalists, and not all reported grant funding.

Prior published work reported complementary findings.[6, 8, 9] A survey of 20 large, well‐established academic hospitalist programs in 2008 found that the majority of hospitalists were junior faculty with a limited publication portfolio. Of the 266 respondents in that study, 86% reported an academic rank at or below assistant professor; funding was not explored.[9] Our similar findings 4 years later add to this work by demonstrating trends over time, and suggest that progress toward creating successful pathways for academic advancement has been slow. In a 2012 survey of the SHM membership, 28% of hospitalists with academic appointments reported no current or future plans to engage in research.[8] These findings suggest that faculty in AHPs may define scholarship through nontraditional pathways, or in some cases choose not to pursue or prioritize scholarship altogether.

Our findings also add to the literature with regard to our assessment of funding, which was variable across the SCHOLAR group. The broad range of funding in the SCHOLAR programs for which we have data (grant dollars $0$15 million per program) suggests that opportunities to improve supported scholarship remain, even among a selected cohort of successful AHPs. The predominance of junior faculty in the SCHOLAR programs may be a reason for this variation. Junior faculty may be engaged in research with funding directed to senior mentors outside their AHP. Alternatively, they may pursue meaningful local hospital quality improvement or educational innovations not supported by external grants, or hold leadership roles in education, quality, or information technology that allow for advancement and promotion without external grant funding. As the scope and impact of these roles increases, senior leaders with alternate sources of support may rely less on research funds; this too may explain some of the differences. Our findings are congruent with results of a study that reviewed original research published by hospitalists, and concluded that the majority of hospitalist research was not externally funded.[8] Our approach for assessing grant funding by adjusting for FTE had the potential to inadvertently favor smaller well‐funded groups over larger ones; however, programs in our sample were similarly represented when ranked by funding/FTE or total grant dollars. As many successful AHPs do concentrate their research funding among a core of focused hospitalist researchers, our definition may not be the ideal metric for some programs.

We chose to define scholarship based on abstract output, rather than peer‐reviewed publications. Although this choice was necessary from a feasibility perspective, it may have excluded programs that prioritize peer‐reviewed publications over abstracts. Although we were unable to incorporate a search strategy to accurately and comprehensively track the publication output attributed specifically to hospitalist researchers and quantify it by program, others have since defined such an approach.[8] However, tracking abstracts theoretically allowed insights into a larger volume of innovative and creative work generated by top AHPs by potentially including work in the earlier stages of development.

We used a consensus‐based definition of success to define our SCHOLAR cohort. There are other ways to measure academic success, which if applied, may have yielded a different sample of programs. For example, over half of the original research articles published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine over a 7‐year span were generated from 5 academic centers.[8] This definition of success may be equally credible, though we note that 4 of these 5 programs were also included in the SCHOLAR cohort. We feel our broader approach was more reflective of the variety of pathways to success available to academic hospitalists. Before our metrics are applied as a benchmarking tool, however, they should ideally be combined with factors not measured in our study to ensure a more comprehensive or balanced reflection of academic success. Factors such as mentorship, level of hospitalist engagement,[10] prevalence of leadership opportunities, operational and fiscal infrastructure, and the impact of local quality, safety, and value efforts should be considered.

Comparison of successfully promoted faculty at AHPs across the country is inherently limited by the wide variation in promotion standards across different institutions; controlling for such differences was not possible with our methodology. For example, it appears that several programs with relatively few senior faculty may have met metrics leading to their inclusion in the SCHOLAR group because of their small program size. Future benchmarking efforts for promotion at AHPs should take scaling into account and consider both total number as well as percentage of senior faculty when evaluating success.

Our methodology has several limitations. Survey data were self‐reported and not independently validated, and as such are subject to recall and reporting biases. Response bias inherently excluded some AHPs that may have met our grant funding or promotions criteria had they participated in the initial LAHP‐50 survey, though we identified and included additional programs through our scholarship metric, increasing the representativeness of the SCHOLAR cohort. Given the dynamic nature of the field, the age of the data we relied upon for analysis limits the generalizability of our specific benchmarks to current practice. However, the development of academic success occurs over the long‐term, and published data on academic hospitalist productivity are consistent with this slower time course.[8] Despite these limitations, our data inform the general topic of gauging performance of AHPs, underscoring the challenges of developing and applying metrics of success, and highlight the variability of performance on selected metrics even among a relatively small group of 17 programs.

In conclusion, we have created a method to quantify academic success that may be useful to academic hospitalists and their group leaders as they set targets for improvement in the field. Even among our SCHOLAR cohort, room for ongoing improvement in development of funded scholarship and a core of senior faculty exists. Further investigation into the unique features of successful groups will offer insight to leaders in academic hospital medicine regarding infrastructure and processes that should be embraced to raise the bar for all AHPs. In addition, efforts to further define and validate nontraditional approaches to scholarship that allow for successful promotion at AHPs would be informative. We view our work less as a singular approach to benchmarking standards for AHPs, and more a call to action to continue efforts to balance scholarly activity and broad professional development of academic hospitalists with increasing clinical demands.

The structure and function of academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) has evolved significantly with the growth of hospital medicine.[1, 2, 3, 4] Many AHPs formed in response to regulatory and financial changes, which drove demand for increased trainee oversight, improved clinical efficiency, and growth in nonteaching services staffed by hospitalists. Differences in local organizational contexts and needs have contributed to great variability in AHP program design and operations. As AHPs have become more established, the need to engage academic hospitalists in scholarship and activities that support professional development and promotion has been recognized. Defining sustainable and successful positions for academic hospitalists is a priority called for by leaders in the field.[5, 6]

In this rapidly evolving context, AHPs have employed a variety of approaches to organizing clinical and academic faculty roles, without guiding evidence or consensus‐based performance benchmarks. A number of AHPs have achieved success along traditional academic metrics of research, scholarship, and education. Currently, it is not known whether specific approaches to AHP organization, structure, or definition of faculty roles are associated with achievement of more traditional markers of academic success.

The Academic Committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), and the Academic Hospitalist Task Force of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) had separately initiated projects to explore characteristics associated with success in AHPs. In 2012, these organizations combined efforts to jointly develop and implement the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research) project. The goals were to identify successful AHPs using objective criteria, and to then study those groups in greater detail to generate insights that would be broadly relevant to the field. Efforts to clarify the factors within AHPs linked to success by traditional academic metrics will benefit hospitalists, their leaders, and key stakeholders striving to achieve optimal balance between clinical and academic roles. We describe the initial work of the SCHOLAR project, our definitions of academic success in AHPs, and the characteristics of a cohort of exemplary AHPs who achieved the highest levels on these metrics.

METHODS

RESULTS

Faculty Promotion

Figure 1 demonstrates the proportion of faculty at various academic ranks. The percent of faculty above the rank of assistant professor in the SCHOLAR programs exceeded those in the overall LAHP‐50 by 5% (17.9% vs 12.8%, P = 0.01). Of note, 6% of the hospitalists at AHPs in the SCHOLAR programs were on nonfaculty tracks.

Figure 1

DISCUSSION

Using a definition of academic success that incorporated metrics of grant funding, faculty promotion, and scholarly output, we identified a unique subset of successful AHPsthe SCHOLAR cohort. The programs represented in the SCHOLAR cohort were generally large and relatively mature. Despite this, the cohort consisted of mostly junior faculty, had a paucity of fellowship‐trained hospitalists, and not all reported grant funding.

Prior published work reported complementary findings.[6, 8, 9] A survey of 20 large, well‐established academic hospitalist programs in 2008 found that the majority of hospitalists were junior faculty with a limited publication portfolio. Of the 266 respondents in that study, 86% reported an academic rank at or below assistant professor; funding was not explored.[9] Our similar findings 4 years later add to this work by demonstrating trends over time, and suggest that progress toward creating successful pathways for academic advancement has been slow. In a 2012 survey of the SHM membership, 28% of hospitalists with academic appointments reported no current or future plans to engage in research.[8] These findings suggest that faculty in AHPs may define scholarship through nontraditional pathways, or in some cases choose not to pursue or prioritize scholarship altogether.

Our findings also add to the literature with regard to our assessment of funding, which was variable across the SCHOLAR group. The broad range of funding in the SCHOLAR programs for which we have data (grant dollars $0$15 million per program) suggests that opportunities to improve supported scholarship remain, even among a selected cohort of successful AHPs. The predominance of junior faculty in the SCHOLAR programs may be a reason for this variation. Junior faculty may be engaged in research with funding directed to senior mentors outside their AHP. Alternatively, they may pursue meaningful local hospital quality improvement or educational innovations not supported by external grants, or hold leadership roles in education, quality, or information technology that allow for advancement and promotion without external grant funding. As the scope and impact of these roles increases, senior leaders with alternate sources of support may rely less on research funds; this too may explain some of the differences. Our findings are congruent with results of a study that reviewed original research published by hospitalists, and concluded that the majority of hospitalist research was not externally funded.[8] Our approach for assessing grant funding by adjusting for FTE had the potential to inadvertently favor smaller well‐funded groups over larger ones; however, programs in our sample were similarly represented when ranked by funding/FTE or total grant dollars. As many successful AHPs do concentrate their research funding among a core of focused hospitalist researchers, our definition may not be the ideal metric for some programs.

We chose to define scholarship based on abstract output, rather than peer‐reviewed publications. Although this choice was necessary from a feasibility perspective, it may have excluded programs that prioritize peer‐reviewed publications over abstracts. Although we were unable to incorporate a search strategy to accurately and comprehensively track the publication output attributed specifically to hospitalist researchers and quantify it by program, others have since defined such an approach.[8] However, tracking abstracts theoretically allowed insights into a larger volume of innovative and creative work generated by top AHPs by potentially including work in the earlier stages of development.

We used a consensus‐based definition of success to define our SCHOLAR cohort. There are other ways to measure academic success, which if applied, may have yielded a different sample of programs. For example, over half of the original research articles published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine over a 7‐year span were generated from 5 academic centers.[8] This definition of success may be equally credible, though we note that 4 of these 5 programs were also included in the SCHOLAR cohort. We feel our broader approach was more reflective of the variety of pathways to success available to academic hospitalists. Before our metrics are applied as a benchmarking tool, however, they should ideally be combined with factors not measured in our study to ensure a more comprehensive or balanced reflection of academic success. Factors such as mentorship, level of hospitalist engagement,[10] prevalence of leadership opportunities, operational and fiscal infrastructure, and the impact of local quality, safety, and value efforts should be considered.

Comparison of successfully promoted faculty at AHPs across the country is inherently limited by the wide variation in promotion standards across different institutions; controlling for such differences was not possible with our methodology. For example, it appears that several programs with relatively few senior faculty may have met metrics leading to their inclusion in the SCHOLAR group because of their small program size. Future benchmarking efforts for promotion at AHPs should take scaling into account and consider both total number as well as percentage of senior faculty when evaluating success.

Our methodology has several limitations. Survey data were self‐reported and not independently validated, and as such are subject to recall and reporting biases. Response bias inherently excluded some AHPs that may have met our grant funding or promotions criteria had they participated in the initial LAHP‐50 survey, though we identified and included additional programs through our scholarship metric, increasing the representativeness of the SCHOLAR cohort. Given the dynamic nature of the field, the age of the data we relied upon for analysis limits the generalizability of our specific benchmarks to current practice. However, the development of academic success occurs over the long‐term, and published data on academic hospitalist productivity are consistent with this slower time course.[8] Despite these limitations, our data inform the general topic of gauging performance of AHPs, underscoring the challenges of developing and applying metrics of success, and highlight the variability of performance on selected metrics even among a relatively small group of 17 programs.

In conclusion, we have created a method to quantify academic success that may be useful to academic hospitalists and their group leaders as they set targets for improvement in the field. Even among our SCHOLAR cohort, room for ongoing improvement in development of funded scholarship and a core of senior faculty exists. Further investigation into the unique features of successful groups will offer insight to leaders in academic hospital medicine regarding infrastructure and processes that should be embraced to raise the bar for all AHPs. In addition, efforts to further define and validate nontraditional approaches to scholarship that allow for successful promotion at AHPs would be informative. We view our work less as a singular approach to benchmarking standards for AHPs, and more a call to action to continue efforts to balance scholarly activity and broad professional development of academic hospitalists with increasing clinical demands.

The structure and function of academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) has evolved significantly with the growth of hospital medicine.[1, 2, 3, 4] Many AHPs formed in response to regulatory and financial changes, which drove demand for increased trainee oversight, improved clinical efficiency, and growth in nonteaching services staffed by hospitalists. Differences in local organizational contexts and needs have contributed to great variability in AHP program design and operations. As AHPs have become more established, the need to engage academic hospitalists in scholarship and activities that support professional development and promotion has been recognized. Defining sustainable and successful positions for academic hospitalists is a priority called for by leaders in the field.[5, 6]

In this rapidly evolving context, AHPs have employed a variety of approaches to organizing clinical and academic faculty roles, without guiding evidence or consensus‐based performance benchmarks. A number of AHPs have achieved success along traditional academic metrics of research, scholarship, and education. Currently, it is not known whether specific approaches to AHP organization, structure, or definition of faculty roles are associated with achievement of more traditional markers of academic success.

The Academic Committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), and the Academic Hospitalist Task Force of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) had separately initiated projects to explore characteristics associated with success in AHPs. In 2012, these organizations combined efforts to jointly develop and implement the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research) project. The goals were to identify successful AHPs using objective criteria, and to then study those groups in greater detail to generate insights that would be broadly relevant to the field. Efforts to clarify the factors within AHPs linked to success by traditional academic metrics will benefit hospitalists, their leaders, and key stakeholders striving to achieve optimal balance between clinical and academic roles. We describe the initial work of the SCHOLAR project, our definitions of academic success in AHPs, and the characteristics of a cohort of exemplary AHPs who achieved the highest levels on these metrics.

METHODS

RESULTS

Faculty Promotion

Figure 1 demonstrates the proportion of faculty at various academic ranks. The percent of faculty above the rank of assistant professor in the SCHOLAR programs exceeded those in the overall LAHP‐50 by 5% (17.9% vs 12.8%, P = 0.01). Of note, 6% of the hospitalists at AHPs in the SCHOLAR programs were on nonfaculty tracks.

Figure 1

DISCUSSION

Using a definition of academic success that incorporated metrics of grant funding, faculty promotion, and scholarly output, we identified a unique subset of successful AHPsthe SCHOLAR cohort. The programs represented in the SCHOLAR cohort were generally large and relatively mature. Despite this, the cohort consisted of mostly junior faculty, had a paucity of fellowship‐trained hospitalists, and not all reported grant funding.

Prior published work reported complementary findings.[6, 8, 9] A survey of 20 large, well‐established academic hospitalist programs in 2008 found that the majority of hospitalists were junior faculty with a limited publication portfolio. Of the 266 respondents in that study, 86% reported an academic rank at or below assistant professor; funding was not explored.[9] Our similar findings 4 years later add to this work by demonstrating trends over time, and suggest that progress toward creating successful pathways for academic advancement has been slow. In a 2012 survey of the SHM membership, 28% of hospitalists with academic appointments reported no current or future plans to engage in research.[8] These findings suggest that faculty in AHPs may define scholarship through nontraditional pathways, or in some cases choose not to pursue or prioritize scholarship altogether.

Our findings also add to the literature with regard to our assessment of funding, which was variable across the SCHOLAR group. The broad range of funding in the SCHOLAR programs for which we have data (grant dollars $0$15 million per program) suggests that opportunities to improve supported scholarship remain, even among a selected cohort of successful AHPs. The predominance of junior faculty in the SCHOLAR programs may be a reason for this variation. Junior faculty may be engaged in research with funding directed to senior mentors outside their AHP. Alternatively, they may pursue meaningful local hospital quality improvement or educational innovations not supported by external grants, or hold leadership roles in education, quality, or information technology that allow for advancement and promotion without external grant funding. As the scope and impact of these roles increases, senior leaders with alternate sources of support may rely less on research funds; this too may explain some of the differences. Our findings are congruent with results of a study that reviewed original research published by hospitalists, and concluded that the majority of hospitalist research was not externally funded.[8] Our approach for assessing grant funding by adjusting for FTE had the potential to inadvertently favor smaller well‐funded groups over larger ones; however, programs in our sample were similarly represented when ranked by funding/FTE or total grant dollars. As many successful AHPs do concentrate their research funding among a core of focused hospitalist researchers, our definition may not be the ideal metric for some programs.

We chose to define scholarship based on abstract output, rather than peer‐reviewed publications. Although this choice was necessary from a feasibility perspective, it may have excluded programs that prioritize peer‐reviewed publications over abstracts. Although we were unable to incorporate a search strategy to accurately and comprehensively track the publication output attributed specifically to hospitalist researchers and quantify it by program, others have since defined such an approach.[8] However, tracking abstracts theoretically allowed insights into a larger volume of innovative and creative work generated by top AHPs by potentially including work in the earlier stages of development.

We used a consensus‐based definition of success to define our SCHOLAR cohort. There are other ways to measure academic success, which if applied, may have yielded a different sample of programs. For example, over half of the original research articles published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine over a 7‐year span were generated from 5 academic centers.[8] This definition of success may be equally credible, though we note that 4 of these 5 programs were also included in the SCHOLAR cohort. We feel our broader approach was more reflective of the variety of pathways to success available to academic hospitalists. Before our metrics are applied as a benchmarking tool, however, they should ideally be combined with factors not measured in our study to ensure a more comprehensive or balanced reflection of academic success. Factors such as mentorship, level of hospitalist engagement,[10] prevalence of leadership opportunities, operational and fiscal infrastructure, and the impact of local quality, safety, and value efforts should be considered.

Comparison of successfully promoted faculty at AHPs across the country is inherently limited by the wide variation in promotion standards across different institutions; controlling for such differences was not possible with our methodology. For example, it appears that several programs with relatively few senior faculty may have met metrics leading to their inclusion in the SCHOLAR group because of their small program size. Future benchmarking efforts for promotion at AHPs should take scaling into account and consider both total number as well as percentage of senior faculty when evaluating success.

Our methodology has several limitations. Survey data were self‐reported and not independently validated, and as such are subject to recall and reporting biases. Response bias inherently excluded some AHPs that may have met our grant funding or promotions criteria had they participated in the initial LAHP‐50 survey, though we identified and included additional programs through our scholarship metric, increasing the representativeness of the SCHOLAR cohort. Given the dynamic nature of the field, the age of the data we relied upon for analysis limits the generalizability of our specific benchmarks to current practice. However, the development of academic success occurs over the long‐term, and published data on academic hospitalist productivity are consistent with this slower time course.[8] Despite these limitations, our data inform the general topic of gauging performance of AHPs, underscoring the challenges of developing and applying metrics of success, and highlight the variability of performance on selected metrics even among a relatively small group of 17 programs.

In conclusion, we have created a method to quantify academic success that may be useful to academic hospitalists and their group leaders as they set targets for improvement in the field. Even among our SCHOLAR cohort, room for ongoing improvement in development of funded scholarship and a core of senior faculty exists. Further investigation into the unique features of successful groups will offer insight to leaders in academic hospital medicine regarding infrastructure and processes that should be embraced to raise the bar for all AHPs. In addition, efforts to further define and validate nontraditional approaches to scholarship that allow for successful promotion at AHPs would be informative. We view our work less as a singular approach to benchmarking standards for AHPs, and more a call to action to continue efforts to balance scholarly activity and broad professional development of academic hospitalists with increasing clinical demands.

While a general consensus exists that surface wound cultures have less utility than deeper cultures, surface cultures are nevertheless routinely used to guide empiric antibiotic administration. This is due in part to the ease with which surface cultures are obtained and the delay in obtaining deeper wound and bone cultures. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends routine culture of all diabetic infections before initiating empiric antibiotic therapy, despite caveats regarding undebrided wounds.1 Further examination of 2 additional societies, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, reveals that they also do not describe guidelines on the role of surface wound cultures in skin, and skin structure infection (SSSI) management.2, 3

Surface wound cultures are used to aid in diagnosis and appropriate antibiotic treatment of lower extremity foot ulcers.4 Contaminated cultures from other body locations have shown little utility and may be wasteful of resources.5, 6 We hypothesize that given commensal skin flora, coupled with the additional flora that colonizes (chronic) lower extremity wounds, surface wound cultures provide poor diagnostic accuracy for determining the etiology of acute infection. In contrast, many believe that deep tissue cultures obtained at time of debridement or surgical intervention may provide more relevant information to guide antibiotic therapy, thus serving as a gold standard.13, 7, 8 Nevertheless, with the ease of obtaining these superficial cultures and the promptness of the results, surface wound cultures are still used as a surrogate for the information derived from deeper cultures.

Purpose

The frequency at which superficial wound cultures correlate with the data obtained from deeper cultures is needed to interpret the posttest likelihood of infection. However, the sensitivity and specificity of superficial wound culture as a diagnostic test is unclear. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the existing literature in order to investigate the relationship between superficial wound cultures and the etiology of SSSI. Accordingly, we aim to describe any role that surface wound cultures may play in the treatment of lower extremity ulcers.

Materials and Methods

Data Sources

We identified eligible articles through an electronic search of the following databases: Medline through PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus. We also hand searched the reference lists of key review articles identified by the electronic search and the reference lists of all eligible articles (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Results

Of 9032 unique citations, eight studies met all inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Inter‐rater reliability was substantial (Kappa = 0.78).12 Areas of initial disagreement generally involved whether a study adequately described an appropriate alternative culture method for comparison or whether data available in an article was sufficient for sensitivity and specificity calculation. Consensus was achieved once the full article was retrieved, reviewed and discussed.

The 8 studies evaluated in the review included a total number of 615 patients or samples (Table 1). Diabetic wounds were described in four studies.1316 Two studies described wounds associated with peripheral vascular disease,13, 17 while four involved traumatic wounds.13, 1719 One study did not identify the clinical circumstances concerning the wounds.20

The studies used several different methods for obtaining superficial cultures. Six studies obtained purulent wound drainage material through the application of sterile swabs.1316, 18, 19 One study obtained purulent drainage material using needle aspiration.18 Two studies obtained culture material from sinus tracts associated with the wounds, one through sinus tract washings17 and another by obtaining sinus tract discharge material.20

The types of comparison cultures used were equally divided between deep tissue biopsies1316 and bone biopsies,1720 each accounting for 50% (4 of 8) of studies.

In assessing the data from the eight studies, the pooled test sensitivity for superficial wound swabs was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37‐61%) (Figure 2). The pooled specificity for superficial wound swabs was 62% (95% CI, 51‐74%), while the pooled positive and negative LRs were 1.1 (95% CI, 0.71‐1.5) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.52‐0.82), respectively (Figure 2).

Figure 2

The median number of bacterial isolates reported for each culture type, superficial and comparison culture, was collected from each study (Table 2). The median value for number of bacterial isolates identified by superficial culture was 2.7 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.8‐3.2). The median value for number of bacterial isolates identified by comparison culture was 2.2 (IQR 1.7‐2.9). A Wilcoxon rank sum analysis showed that the number of isolates for surface wound cultures was not significantly different than the number of isolates for comparison cultures (P = 0.75) (Table 1).

Discussion

In performing this review, we discovered ambiguity in the literature regarding the utility of surface wound cultures. Some studies obtained findings to suggest the utility of surface wound cultures,8, 14, 17 while other studies in our review16, 18, 19 provided evidence against them. This variability confirmed the need for a meta‐analytic approach as provided by this review.

While we have tried to minimize bias through a well‐established methodology, we acknowledge that certain methodological limitations should be considered in interpreting the results. There may be publication bias in reviews that include only published articles; a funnel plot of sensitivity vs. sample size showed some asymmetry, suggesting bias. Our search strategy was limited to English‐only articles, which may result in publication bias.

Further, this review included a group of studies that were heterogeneous in several regards. Differences exist in culturing methods and laboratory technology, as exemplified by the variety of superficial culture methods used. We were not able to account for these laboratory differences, as methodologies in obtaining and isolating bacteria were not uniformly well described.

Additionally, the studies classified organisms in different ways. Three studies categorized organisms according to Gram's stain characteristics.13, 16, 18 One study described organisms primarily in terms of aerobic or anaerobic respiration.15 Two studies14, 19 discussed pathogens both in terms of respiration (aerobic/anaerobic) and Gram's stain characteristic, while another 2 studies17, 20 did not describe organisms in either terms. These inconsistencies limited our ability to provide sensitivity and specificity information for specific subclasses of organisms.

The clinical conditions in each study surrounding the wounds were also heterogeneous: most significantly in the issue of prior antibiotic administration. All but 1 study16 indicated that the patients had received antibiotics prior to having cultures obtained. The type of antibiotics (narrow‐spectrum or broad‐spectrum), the route of administration, and the cessation of antibiotics in relation to obtaining swabs and cultures all varied widely or were not well described. This degree of ambiguity will necessarily impact both the reliability of data regarding microbial growth as well as the component flora.

The inclusion of higher quality studies is likely to result in a more reliable meta‐analysis.21 We had hoped that antibiotic trials would contain uniform outcomes and thus strengthen our meta‐analysis through the inclusion of randomized‐controlled studies. Unfortunately, the majority of antibiotic trials did not use superficial wound cultures, did not report mean number of isolates, or did not provide microbiological data in sufficient detail to calculate concordance ratesand therefore, did not meet eligibility criteria. Randomized‐controlled trials were a minority among our included articles; the majority of study designs were retrospective cohorts and case‐controlled studies.

Despite these limitations, we were able to conclude that superficial wound culture provides mediocre sensitivity (49%) and specificity (62%). The positive LR of 1.1 is unhelpful in decision making, having a CI that includes 1. Interestingly, the negative LR of 0.67 could be somewhat helpful in medical decision making, modifying the pretest probability and assisting in ruling out a deeper bacterial infection. Although, according to Fagan's nomogram, a negative LR of 0.67 has only a mild effect on pretest odds.22

The bacterial bioburden assessed by the number of isolates obtained by culture method serves as a proxy for reliability of culture results14, 23 by suggesting that fewer organisms isolated from deep tissue or bone samples reflects a less contaminated specimen. Our assessment of the bioburden found that the median number of isolates was slightly higher in surface cultures than deeper cultures, though not to a significant degree (P = 0.75). This indicates that the degree of contamination in superficial cultures was neither significantly worse nor better than deep cultures.

We attempted to define a role for surface wound cultures; however, we found that these did not show any greater utility than deep cultures for identifying the microbiologic etiology of diabetic wound infections. While the negative LR provides some quantitative verification of the common clinical practice that a negative culture argues against infection, the finding is not especially robust.

Although for this meta‐analysis we grouped all organisms in the same way, we recognize that the sensitivity and specificity may differ according to various subclasses of bacteria. Interpretations of culture results also vary (eg, Gram positive vs. negative; aerobic vs. anaerobic); practitioners will not interpret superficial cultures of coagulase‐negative Staphylococcus in the same way as Pseudomonas. However, this study seeks to establish a reasonable starting point for the medical decision‐making process by providing quantitative values in an area with previously conflicting data. We anticipate that as laboratory techniques improve and research into superficial wounds continues, greater sensitivity of superficial wound cultures will result.

Ultimately, physicians use culture data to target therapy in an effort to use the least toxic and most effective antimicrobial agent possible to successfully treat infections. Clinical outcomes were not described in all included articles; in those that did, the endpoints were too dissimilar for meaningful comparison. Limiting our review to studies reporting treatment outcomes would have resulted in too few included studies. Thus, we were unable able to assess whether superficial wound cultures were associated with improved patient‐oriented outcomes in this meta‐analysis.

There is a significant paucity of trials evaluating the accurate concordance of superficial swabs to deep tissue culture. The current data shows poor sensitivity and specificity of superficial culture methods. The presumption that deeper cultures (such as a bone biopsy) should result in a less contaminated sample and more targeted culture results was also not borne out in our review. When presented with a patient with a wound infection, physicians mentally supply a pretest (or a pretreatment) probability as to the microbiologic etiology of the infection. Careful history will, of course, be critical in identifying extenuating circumstance or unusual exposures. From our meta‐analysis, we cannot recommend the routine use of superficial wound cultures to guide initial antibiotic therapy as this may result in poor resource utilization.5 While clinical outcomes from the use of routine superficial cultures are unclear, we suggest greater use of local antibiograms and methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevalence data to determine resistance patterns and guide the selection of empiric therapies.

While a general consensus exists that surface wound cultures have less utility than deeper cultures, surface cultures are nevertheless routinely used to guide empiric antibiotic administration. This is due in part to the ease with which surface cultures are obtained and the delay in obtaining deeper wound and bone cultures. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends routine culture of all diabetic infections before initiating empiric antibiotic therapy, despite caveats regarding undebrided wounds.1 Further examination of 2 additional societies, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, reveals that they also do not describe guidelines on the role of surface wound cultures in skin, and skin structure infection (SSSI) management.2, 3

Surface wound cultures are used to aid in diagnosis and appropriate antibiotic treatment of lower extremity foot ulcers.4 Contaminated cultures from other body locations have shown little utility and may be wasteful of resources.5, 6 We hypothesize that given commensal skin flora, coupled with the additional flora that colonizes (chronic) lower extremity wounds, surface wound cultures provide poor diagnostic accuracy for determining the etiology of acute infection. In contrast, many believe that deep tissue cultures obtained at time of debridement or surgical intervention may provide more relevant information to guide antibiotic therapy, thus serving as a gold standard.13, 7, 8 Nevertheless, with the ease of obtaining these superficial cultures and the promptness of the results, surface wound cultures are still used as a surrogate for the information derived from deeper cultures.

Purpose

The frequency at which superficial wound cultures correlate with the data obtained from deeper cultures is needed to interpret the posttest likelihood of infection. However, the sensitivity and specificity of superficial wound culture as a diagnostic test is unclear. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the existing literature in order to investigate the relationship between superficial wound cultures and the etiology of SSSI. Accordingly, we aim to describe any role that surface wound cultures may play in the treatment of lower extremity ulcers.

Materials and Methods

Data Sources

We identified eligible articles through an electronic search of the following databases: Medline through PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus. We also hand searched the reference lists of key review articles identified by the electronic search and the reference lists of all eligible articles (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Results

Of 9032 unique citations, eight studies met all inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Inter‐rater reliability was substantial (Kappa = 0.78).12 Areas of initial disagreement generally involved whether a study adequately described an appropriate alternative culture method for comparison or whether data available in an article was sufficient for sensitivity and specificity calculation. Consensus was achieved once the full article was retrieved, reviewed and discussed.

The 8 studies evaluated in the review included a total number of 615 patients or samples (Table 1). Diabetic wounds were described in four studies.1316 Two studies described wounds associated with peripheral vascular disease,13, 17 while four involved traumatic wounds.13, 1719 One study did not identify the clinical circumstances concerning the wounds.20

The studies used several different methods for obtaining superficial cultures. Six studies obtained purulent wound drainage material through the application of sterile swabs.1316, 18, 19 One study obtained purulent drainage material using needle aspiration.18 Two studies obtained culture material from sinus tracts associated with the wounds, one through sinus tract washings17 and another by obtaining sinus tract discharge material.20

The types of comparison cultures used were equally divided between deep tissue biopsies1316 and bone biopsies,1720 each accounting for 50% (4 of 8) of studies.

In assessing the data from the eight studies, the pooled test sensitivity for superficial wound swabs was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37‐61%) (Figure 2). The pooled specificity for superficial wound swabs was 62% (95% CI, 51‐74%), while the pooled positive and negative LRs were 1.1 (95% CI, 0.71‐1.5) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.52‐0.82), respectively (Figure 2).

Figure 2

The median number of bacterial isolates reported for each culture type, superficial and comparison culture, was collected from each study (Table 2). The median value for number of bacterial isolates identified by superficial culture was 2.7 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.8‐3.2). The median value for number of bacterial isolates identified by comparison culture was 2.2 (IQR 1.7‐2.9). A Wilcoxon rank sum analysis showed that the number of isolates for surface wound cultures was not significantly different than the number of isolates for comparison cultures (P = 0.75) (Table 1).

Discussion

In performing this review, we discovered ambiguity in the literature regarding the utility of surface wound cultures. Some studies obtained findings to suggest the utility of surface wound cultures,8, 14, 17 while other studies in our review16, 18, 19 provided evidence against them. This variability confirmed the need for a meta‐analytic approach as provided by this review.

While we have tried to minimize bias through a well‐established methodology, we acknowledge that certain methodological limitations should be considered in interpreting the results. There may be publication bias in reviews that include only published articles; a funnel plot of sensitivity vs. sample size showed some asymmetry, suggesting bias. Our search strategy was limited to English‐only articles, which may result in publication bias.

Further, this review included a group of studies that were heterogeneous in several regards. Differences exist in culturing methods and laboratory technology, as exemplified by the variety of superficial culture methods used. We were not able to account for these laboratory differences, as methodologies in obtaining and isolating bacteria were not uniformly well described.

Additionally, the studies classified organisms in different ways. Three studies categorized organisms according to Gram's stain characteristics.13, 16, 18 One study described organisms primarily in terms of aerobic or anaerobic respiration.15 Two studies14, 19 discussed pathogens both in terms of respiration (aerobic/anaerobic) and Gram's stain characteristic, while another 2 studies17, 20 did not describe organisms in either terms. These inconsistencies limited our ability to provide sensitivity and specificity information for specific subclasses of organisms.

The clinical conditions in each study surrounding the wounds were also heterogeneous: most significantly in the issue of prior antibiotic administration. All but 1 study16 indicated that the patients had received antibiotics prior to having cultures obtained. The type of antibiotics (narrow‐spectrum or broad‐spectrum), the route of administration, and the cessation of antibiotics in relation to obtaining swabs and cultures all varied widely or were not well described. This degree of ambiguity will necessarily impact both the reliability of data regarding microbial growth as well as the component flora.

The inclusion of higher quality studies is likely to result in a more reliable meta‐analysis.21 We had hoped that antibiotic trials would contain uniform outcomes and thus strengthen our meta‐analysis through the inclusion of randomized‐controlled studies. Unfortunately, the majority of antibiotic trials did not use superficial wound cultures, did not report mean number of isolates, or did not provide microbiological data in sufficient detail to calculate concordance ratesand therefore, did not meet eligibility criteria. Randomized‐controlled trials were a minority among our included articles; the majority of study designs were retrospective cohorts and case‐controlled studies.

Despite these limitations, we were able to conclude that superficial wound culture provides mediocre sensitivity (49%) and specificity (62%). The positive LR of 1.1 is unhelpful in decision making, having a CI that includes 1. Interestingly, the negative LR of 0.67 could be somewhat helpful in medical decision making, modifying the pretest probability and assisting in ruling out a deeper bacterial infection. Although, according to Fagan's nomogram, a negative LR of 0.67 has only a mild effect on pretest odds.22

The bacterial bioburden assessed by the number of isolates obtained by culture method serves as a proxy for reliability of culture results14, 23 by suggesting that fewer organisms isolated from deep tissue or bone samples reflects a less contaminated specimen. Our assessment of the bioburden found that the median number of isolates was slightly higher in surface cultures than deeper cultures, though not to a significant degree (P = 0.75). This indicates that the degree of contamination in superficial cultures was neither significantly worse nor better than deep cultures.

We attempted to define a role for surface wound cultures; however, we found that these did not show any greater utility than deep cultures for identifying the microbiologic etiology of diabetic wound infections. While the negative LR provides some quantitative verification of the common clinical practice that a negative culture argues against infection, the finding is not especially robust.

Although for this meta‐analysis we grouped all organisms in the same way, we recognize that the sensitivity and specificity may differ according to various subclasses of bacteria. Interpretations of culture results also vary (eg, Gram positive vs. negative; aerobic vs. anaerobic); practitioners will not interpret superficial cultures of coagulase‐negative Staphylococcus in the same way as Pseudomonas. However, this study seeks to establish a reasonable starting point for the medical decision‐making process by providing quantitative values in an area with previously conflicting data. We anticipate that as laboratory techniques improve and research into superficial wounds continues, greater sensitivity of superficial wound cultures will result.

Ultimately, physicians use culture data to target therapy in an effort to use the least toxic and most effective antimicrobial agent possible to successfully treat infections. Clinical outcomes were not described in all included articles; in those that did, the endpoints were too dissimilar for meaningful comparison. Limiting our review to studies reporting treatment outcomes would have resulted in too few included studies. Thus, we were unable able to assess whether superficial wound cultures were associated with improved patient‐oriented outcomes in this meta‐analysis.

There is a significant paucity of trials evaluating the accurate concordance of superficial swabs to deep tissue culture. The current data shows poor sensitivity and specificity of superficial culture methods. The presumption that deeper cultures (such as a bone biopsy) should result in a less contaminated sample and more targeted culture results was also not borne out in our review. When presented with a patient with a wound infection, physicians mentally supply a pretest (or a pretreatment) probability as to the microbiologic etiology of the infection. Careful history will, of course, be critical in identifying extenuating circumstance or unusual exposures. From our meta‐analysis, we cannot recommend the routine use of superficial wound cultures to guide initial antibiotic therapy as this may result in poor resource utilization.5 While clinical outcomes from the use of routine superficial cultures are unclear, we suggest greater use of local antibiograms and methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevalence data to determine resistance patterns and guide the selection of empiric therapies.

While a general consensus exists that surface wound cultures have less utility than deeper cultures, surface cultures are nevertheless routinely used to guide empiric antibiotic administration. This is due in part to the ease with which surface cultures are obtained and the delay in obtaining deeper wound and bone cultures. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recommends routine culture of all diabetic infections before initiating empiric antibiotic therapy, despite caveats regarding undebrided wounds.1 Further examination of 2 additional societies, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, reveals that they also do not describe guidelines on the role of surface wound cultures in skin, and skin structure infection (SSSI) management.2, 3

Surface wound cultures are used to aid in diagnosis and appropriate antibiotic treatment of lower extremity foot ulcers.4 Contaminated cultures from other body locations have shown little utility and may be wasteful of resources.5, 6 We hypothesize that given commensal skin flora, coupled with the additional flora that colonizes (chronic) lower extremity wounds, surface wound cultures provide poor diagnostic accuracy for determining the etiology of acute infection. In contrast, many believe that deep tissue cultures obtained at time of debridement or surgical intervention may provide more relevant information to guide antibiotic therapy, thus serving as a gold standard.13, 7, 8 Nevertheless, with the ease of obtaining these superficial cultures and the promptness of the results, surface wound cultures are still used as a surrogate for the information derived from deeper cultures.

Purpose

The frequency at which superficial wound cultures correlate with the data obtained from deeper cultures is needed to interpret the posttest likelihood of infection. However, the sensitivity and specificity of superficial wound culture as a diagnostic test is unclear. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the existing literature in order to investigate the relationship between superficial wound cultures and the etiology of SSSI. Accordingly, we aim to describe any role that surface wound cultures may play in the treatment of lower extremity ulcers.

Materials and Methods

Data Sources

We identified eligible articles through an electronic search of the following databases: Medline through PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus. We also hand searched the reference lists of key review articles identified by the electronic search and the reference lists of all eligible articles (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Results

Of 9032 unique citations, eight studies met all inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Inter‐rater reliability was substantial (Kappa = 0.78).12 Areas of initial disagreement generally involved whether a study adequately described an appropriate alternative culture method for comparison or whether data available in an article was sufficient for sensitivity and specificity calculation. Consensus was achieved once the full article was retrieved, reviewed and discussed.

The 8 studies evaluated in the review included a total number of 615 patients or samples (Table 1). Diabetic wounds were described in four studies.1316 Two studies described wounds associated with peripheral vascular disease,13, 17 while four involved traumatic wounds.13, 1719 One study did not identify the clinical circumstances concerning the wounds.20

The studies used several different methods for obtaining superficial cultures. Six studies obtained purulent wound drainage material through the application of sterile swabs.1316, 18, 19 One study obtained purulent drainage material using needle aspiration.18 Two studies obtained culture material from sinus tracts associated with the wounds, one through sinus tract washings17 and another by obtaining sinus tract discharge material.20

The types of comparison cultures used were equally divided between deep tissue biopsies1316 and bone biopsies,1720 each accounting for 50% (4 of 8) of studies.

In assessing the data from the eight studies, the pooled test sensitivity for superficial wound swabs was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37‐61%) (Figure 2). The pooled specificity for superficial wound swabs was 62% (95% CI, 51‐74%), while the pooled positive and negative LRs were 1.1 (95% CI, 0.71‐1.5) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.52‐0.82), respectively (Figure 2).

Figure 2

The median number of bacterial isolates reported for each culture type, superficial and comparison culture, was collected from each study (Table 2). The median value for number of bacterial isolates identified by superficial culture was 2.7 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.8‐3.2). The median value for number of bacterial isolates identified by comparison culture was 2.2 (IQR 1.7‐2.9). A Wilcoxon rank sum analysis showed that the number of isolates for surface wound cultures was not significantly different than the number of isolates for comparison cultures (P = 0.75) (Table 1).

Discussion

In performing this review, we discovered ambiguity in the literature regarding the utility of surface wound cultures. Some studies obtained findings to suggest the utility of surface wound cultures,8, 14, 17 while other studies in our review16, 18, 19 provided evidence against them. This variability confirmed the need for a meta‐analytic approach as provided by this review.

While we have tried to minimize bias through a well‐established methodology, we acknowledge that certain methodological limitations should be considered in interpreting the results. There may be publication bias in reviews that include only published articles; a funnel plot of sensitivity vs. sample size showed some asymmetry, suggesting bias. Our search strategy was limited to English‐only articles, which may result in publication bias.

Further, this review included a group of studies that were heterogeneous in several regards. Differences exist in culturing methods and laboratory technology, as exemplified by the variety of superficial culture methods used. We were not able to account for these laboratory differences, as methodologies in obtaining and isolating bacteria were not uniformly well described.

Additionally, the studies classified organisms in different ways. Three studies categorized organisms according to Gram's stain characteristics.13, 16, 18 One study described organisms primarily in terms of aerobic or anaerobic respiration.15 Two studies14, 19 discussed pathogens both in terms of respiration (aerobic/anaerobic) and Gram's stain characteristic, while another 2 studies17, 20 did not describe organisms in either terms. These inconsistencies limited our ability to provide sensitivity and specificity information for specific subclasses of organisms.

The clinical conditions in each study surrounding the wounds were also heterogeneous: most significantly in the issue of prior antibiotic administration. All but 1 study16 indicated that the patients had received antibiotics prior to having cultures obtained. The type of antibiotics (narrow‐spectrum or broad‐spectrum), the route of administration, and the cessation of antibiotics in relation to obtaining swabs and cultures all varied widely or were not well described. This degree of ambiguity will necessarily impact both the reliability of data regarding microbial growth as well as the component flora.

The inclusion of higher quality studies is likely to result in a more reliable meta‐analysis.21 We had hoped that antibiotic trials would contain uniform outcomes and thus strengthen our meta‐analysis through the inclusion of randomized‐controlled studies. Unfortunately, the majority of antibiotic trials did not use superficial wound cultures, did not report mean number of isolates, or did not provide microbiological data in sufficient detail to calculate concordance ratesand therefore, did not meet eligibility criteria. Randomized‐controlled trials were a minority among our included articles; the majority of study designs were retrospective cohorts and case‐controlled studies.

Despite these limitations, we were able to conclude that superficial wound culture provides mediocre sensitivity (49%) and specificity (62%). The positive LR of 1.1 is unhelpful in decision making, having a CI that includes 1. Interestingly, the negative LR of 0.67 could be somewhat helpful in medical decision making, modifying the pretest probability and assisting in ruling out a deeper bacterial infection. Although, according to Fagan's nomogram, a negative LR of 0.67 has only a mild effect on pretest odds.22

The bacterial bioburden assessed by the number of isolates obtained by culture method serves as a proxy for reliability of culture results14, 23 by suggesting that fewer organisms isolated from deep tissue or bone samples reflects a less contaminated specimen. Our assessment of the bioburden found that the median number of isolates was slightly higher in surface cultures than deeper cultures, though not to a significant degree (P = 0.75). This indicates that the degree of contamination in superficial cultures was neither significantly worse nor better than deep cultures.

We attempted to define a role for surface wound cultures; however, we found that these did not show any greater utility than deep cultures for identifying the microbiologic etiology of diabetic wound infections. While the negative LR provides some quantitative verification of the common clinical practice that a negative culture argues against infection, the finding is not especially robust.

Although for this meta‐analysis we grouped all organisms in the same way, we recognize that the sensitivity and specificity may differ according to various subclasses of bacteria. Interpretations of culture results also vary (eg, Gram positive vs. negative; aerobic vs. anaerobic); practitioners will not interpret superficial cultures of coagulase‐negative Staphylococcus in the same way as Pseudomonas. However, this study seeks to establish a reasonable starting point for the medical decision‐making process by providing quantitative values in an area with previously conflicting data. We anticipate that as laboratory techniques improve and research into superficial wounds continues, greater sensitivity of superficial wound cultures will result.

Ultimately, physicians use culture data to target therapy in an effort to use the least toxic and most effective antimicrobial agent possible to successfully treat infections. Clinical outcomes were not described in all included articles; in those that did, the endpoints were too dissimilar for meaningful comparison. Limiting our review to studies reporting treatment outcomes would have resulted in too few included studies. Thus, we were unable able to assess whether superficial wound cultures were associated with improved patient‐oriented outcomes in this meta‐analysis.

There is a significant paucity of trials evaluating the accurate concordance of superficial swabs to deep tissue culture. The current data shows poor sensitivity and specificity of superficial culture methods. The presumption that deeper cultures (such as a bone biopsy) should result in a less contaminated sample and more targeted culture results was also not borne out in our review. When presented with a patient with a wound infection, physicians mentally supply a pretest (or a pretreatment) probability as to the microbiologic etiology of the infection. Careful history will, of course, be critical in identifying extenuating circumstance or unusual exposures. From our meta‐analysis, we cannot recommend the routine use of superficial wound cultures to guide initial antibiotic therapy as this may result in poor resource utilization.5 While clinical outcomes from the use of routine superficial cultures are unclear, we suggest greater use of local antibiograms and methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevalence data to determine resistance patterns and guide the selection of empiric therapies.

If you wish to receive credit for this activity, which begins on the next page, please refer to the website: www.blackwellpublishing.com/cme.

Accreditation and Designation Statement

Blackwell Futura Media Services designates this educational activity for a 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Blackwell Futura Media Services is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

Educational Objectives

Continuous participation in the Journal of Hospital Medicine CME program will enable learners to be better able to:

• Interpret clinical guidelines and their applications for higher quality and more efficient care for all hospitalized patients.

• Describe the standard of care for common illnesses and conditions treated in the hospital; such as pneumonia, COPD exacerbation, acute coronary syndrome, HF exacerbation, glycemic control, venous thromboembolic disease, stroke, etc.

• Discuss evidence‐based recommendations involving transitions of care, including the hospital discharge process.

• Gain insights into the roles of hospitalists as medical educators, researchers, medical ethicists, palliative care providers, and hospital‐based geriatricians.

• Incorporate best practices for hospitalist administration, including quality improvement, patient safety, practice management, leadership, and demonstrating hospitalist value.

• Identify evidence‐based best practices and trends for both adult and pediatric hospital medicine.

Instructions on Receiving Credit

For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing medical education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page.

Follow these steps to earn credit:

• Log on to www.blackwellpublishing.com/cme.

• Read the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.

• Read the article in print or online format.

• Reflect on the article.

• Access the CME Exam, and choose the best answer to each question.

• Complete the required evaluation component of the activity.

If you wish to receive credit for this activity, which begins on the next page, please refer to the website: www.blackwellpublishing.com/cme.

Accreditation and Designation Statement

Blackwell Futura Media Services designates this educational activity for a 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Blackwell Futura Media Services is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

Educational Objectives

Continuous participation in the Journal of Hospital Medicine CME program will enable learners to be better able to:

• Interpret clinical guidelines and their applications for higher quality and more efficient care for all hospitalized patients.

• Describe the standard of care for common illnesses and conditions treated in the hospital; such as pneumonia, COPD exacerbation, acute coronary syndrome, HF exacerbation, glycemic control, venous thromboembolic disease, stroke, etc.

• Discuss evidence‐based recommendations involving transitions of care, including the hospital discharge process.

• Gain insights into the roles of hospitalists as medical educators, researchers, medical ethicists, palliative care providers, and hospital‐based geriatricians.

• Incorporate best practices for hospitalist administration, including quality improvement, patient safety, practice management, leadership, and demonstrating hospitalist value.

• Identify evidence‐based best practices and trends for both adult and pediatric hospital medicine.

Instructions on Receiving Credit

For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing medical education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page.

Follow these steps to earn credit:

• Log on to www.blackwellpublishing.com/cme.

• Read the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.

• Read the article in print or online format.

• Reflect on the article.

• Access the CME Exam, and choose the best answer to each question.

• Complete the required evaluation component of the activity.

If you wish to receive credit for this activity, which begins on the next page, please refer to the website: www.blackwellpublishing.com/cme.

Accreditation and Designation Statement

Blackwell Futura Media Services designates this educational activity for a 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Blackwell Futura Media Services is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

Educational Objectives

Continuous participation in the Journal of Hospital Medicine CME program will enable learners to be better able to:

• Interpret clinical guidelines and their applications for higher quality and more efficient care for all hospitalized patients.

• Describe the standard of care for common illnesses and conditions treated in the hospital; such as pneumonia, COPD exacerbation, acute coronary syndrome, HF exacerbation, glycemic control, venous thromboembolic disease, stroke, etc.

• Discuss evidence‐based recommendations involving transitions of care, including the hospital discharge process.

• Gain insights into the roles of hospitalists as medical educators, researchers, medical ethicists, palliative care providers, and hospital‐based geriatricians.

• Incorporate best practices for hospitalist administration, including quality improvement, patient safety, practice management, leadership, and demonstrating hospitalist value.

• Identify evidence‐based best practices and trends for both adult and pediatric hospital medicine.

Instructions on Receiving Credit

For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing medical education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page.

Follow these steps to earn credit:

• Log on to www.blackwellpublishing.com/cme.

• Read the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.

• Read the article in print or online format.

• Reflect on the article.

• Access the CME Exam, and choose the best answer to each question.

• Complete the required evaluation component of the activity.

A 62‐year‐old man with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease (CAD), on peritoneal dialysis, presented with a nonhealing left lower extremity ulcer (Figure 1). Treatment with empiric antibiotics showed no improvement and cultures remained persistently negative. A surgical specimen revealed pathological changes consistent with calciphylaxis (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

With a mortality between 30% and 80% and a 5‐year survival of 40%,1‐3 calciphylaxis, or calcific uremic arteriolopathy, is devastating. Dialysis and a calcium‐phosphate product above 60 mg²/dL2 increased the index of suspicion (our patient = 70).4 As visual findings may resemble vasculitis or atherosclerotic vascular lesions, biopsy remains the mainstay of diagnosis. Findings include intimal fibrosis, medial calcification, panniculitis, and fat necrosis.5

Management involves aggressive phosphate binding, preventing superinfection, and surgical debridement.6 The evidence for newer therapies (sodium thiosulfate, cinacalcet) appears promising,7‐10 while the benefit of parathyroidectomy is equivocal.11 Despite therapy, our patient developed new lesions (right lower extremity, penis) and opted for hospice services.

A 62‐year‐old man with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease (CAD), on peritoneal dialysis, presented with a nonhealing left lower extremity ulcer (Figure 1). Treatment with empiric antibiotics showed no improvement and cultures remained persistently negative. A surgical specimen revealed pathological changes consistent with calciphylaxis (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

With a mortality between 30% and 80% and a 5‐year survival of 40%,1‐3 calciphylaxis, or calcific uremic arteriolopathy, is devastating. Dialysis and a calcium‐phosphate product above 60 mg²/dL2 increased the index of suspicion (our patient = 70).4 As visual findings may resemble vasculitis or atherosclerotic vascular lesions, biopsy remains the mainstay of diagnosis. Findings include intimal fibrosis, medial calcification, panniculitis, and fat necrosis.5

Management involves aggressive phosphate binding, preventing superinfection, and surgical debridement.6 The evidence for newer therapies (sodium thiosulfate, cinacalcet) appears promising,7‐10 while the benefit of parathyroidectomy is equivocal.11 Despite therapy, our patient developed new lesions (right lower extremity, penis) and opted for hospice services.

A 62‐year‐old man with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease (CAD), on peritoneal dialysis, presented with a nonhealing left lower extremity ulcer (Figure 1). Treatment with empiric antibiotics showed no improvement and cultures remained persistently negative. A surgical specimen revealed pathological changes consistent with calciphylaxis (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

With a mortality between 30% and 80% and a 5‐year survival of 40%,1‐3 calciphylaxis, or calcific uremic arteriolopathy, is devastating. Dialysis and a calcium‐phosphate product above 60 mg²/dL2 increased the index of suspicion (our patient = 70).4 As visual findings may resemble vasculitis or atherosclerotic vascular lesions, biopsy remains the mainstay of diagnosis. Findings include intimal fibrosis, medial calcification, panniculitis, and fat necrosis.5

Management involves aggressive phosphate binding, preventing superinfection, and surgical debridement.6 The evidence for newer therapies (sodium thiosulfate, cinacalcet) appears promising,7‐10 while the benefit of parathyroidectomy is equivocal.11 Despite therapy, our patient developed new lesions (right lower extremity, penis) and opted for hospice services.

Prado et al.'s1 insightful analysis on a rapid response system failure draws attention to afferent limb system failures of medical emergency teams (METs). The article also serves to highlight several key quality improvement (QI) educational points. The authors demonstrate a thorough grasp of the literature concerning METs. The case description reveals a detailed investigation that is thorough enough to create a timeline of events. I applaud the literature review and construction of a timeline, as these represent the first several steps of a root‐cause analysisbut they are somewhat insufficient. More work can be done here.

Extending their line of inquiry may uncover specific system factors involved in the afferent limb failure. To further the analysis, careful interviews of all involved personnel (including patients, family members, and nurses) may help identify the factors that compromise afferent limbs of METs and thereby make necessary improvements, as in the innovative Josie King Safety Program at Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, MD). Prado et al.1 are extremely fortunate in that their institution has a monitoring system in place to track MET activations. A more ambitious, though potentially more fruitful project, would be to, examine previous afferent limb failures in an effort to identify systems factors that are more generalizable to other institutions.

The difficulties in obtaining data are 2‐fold: first in gathering the data, and second in extending the data beyond one's own institution. The very nature of QI data, eg, data that are locally obtained and relevant to a particular institution, hinders its generalizability. However, afferent limb failures are real and perhaps ubiquitous.2, 3 The challenge then, is to develop strategies that can improve the functioning of METs (both afferent and efferent limbs) regardless of the institution.

As afferent limbs of METs have been identified as a priority for future attention for the greatest benefit,2, 4 the process of analyzing root‐causes of systems failures seems to be analogous to identifying risk factors for a novel disease. Once identified, the appropriate risk‐factor modifications can be undertaken. Only by careful examination of the data can true, relevant factors be identified. For this reason, I feel that Prado et al.'s1 excellent work should be expanded upon and replicated in other institutions.

Should these types of QI projects become more amenable to extrapolation to other institutions, a predominant reporting format may be needed. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guideline http://www.squire‐statement.org/guidelines for reporting a QI project is an example of 1 such format. This is particularly relevant as hospitalists are increasingly encouraged to be more productive beyond clinical excellence. QI represents a clear avenue for this productivity, though a recent commentary suggests that most QI projects are not published or publishable.5 On the other hand, the authors of that article do advocate the development of quality dossiers analogous to educators portfolios that can be useful for promotions.5 At least 1 organization has assembled a framework in the quality portfolio in anticipation of the utility of quality dossiers.6

Prado et al.'s1 insightful analysis on a rapid response system failure draws attention to afferent limb system failures of medical emergency teams (METs). The article also serves to highlight several key quality improvement (QI) educational points. The authors demonstrate a thorough grasp of the literature concerning METs. The case description reveals a detailed investigation that is thorough enough to create a timeline of events. I applaud the literature review and construction of a timeline, as these represent the first several steps of a root‐cause analysisbut they are somewhat insufficient. More work can be done here.

Extending their line of inquiry may uncover specific system factors involved in the afferent limb failure. To further the analysis, careful interviews of all involved personnel (including patients, family members, and nurses) may help identify the factors that compromise afferent limbs of METs and thereby make necessary improvements, as in the innovative Josie King Safety Program at Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, MD). Prado et al.1 are extremely fortunate in that their institution has a monitoring system in place to track MET activations. A more ambitious, though potentially more fruitful project, would be to, examine previous afferent limb failures in an effort to identify systems factors that are more generalizable to other institutions.

The difficulties in obtaining data are 2‐fold: first in gathering the data, and second in extending the data beyond one's own institution. The very nature of QI data, eg, data that are locally obtained and relevant to a particular institution, hinders its generalizability. However, afferent limb failures are real and perhaps ubiquitous.2, 3 The challenge then, is to develop strategies that can improve the functioning of METs (both afferent and efferent limbs) regardless of the institution.

As afferent limbs of METs have been identified as a priority for future attention for the greatest benefit,2, 4 the process of analyzing root‐causes of systems failures seems to be analogous to identifying risk factors for a novel disease. Once identified, the appropriate risk‐factor modifications can be undertaken. Only by careful examination of the data can true, relevant factors be identified. For this reason, I feel that Prado et al.'s1 excellent work should be expanded upon and replicated in other institutions.

Should these types of QI projects become more amenable to extrapolation to other institutions, a predominant reporting format may be needed. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guideline http://www.squire‐statement.org/guidelines for reporting a QI project is an example of 1 such format. This is particularly relevant as hospitalists are increasingly encouraged to be more productive beyond clinical excellence. QI represents a clear avenue for this productivity, though a recent commentary suggests that most QI projects are not published or publishable.5 On the other hand, the authors of that article do advocate the development of quality dossiers analogous to educators portfolios that can be useful for promotions.5 At least 1 organization has assembled a framework in the quality portfolio in anticipation of the utility of quality dossiers.6

Prado et al.'s1 insightful analysis on a rapid response system failure draws attention to afferent limb system failures of medical emergency teams (METs). The article also serves to highlight several key quality improvement (QI) educational points. The authors demonstrate a thorough grasp of the literature concerning METs. The case description reveals a detailed investigation that is thorough enough to create a timeline of events. I applaud the literature review and construction of a timeline, as these represent the first several steps of a root‐cause analysisbut they are somewhat insufficient. More work can be done here.

Extending their line of inquiry may uncover specific system factors involved in the afferent limb failure. To further the analysis, careful interviews of all involved personnel (including patients, family members, and nurses) may help identify the factors that compromise afferent limbs of METs and thereby make necessary improvements, as in the innovative Josie King Safety Program at Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, MD). Prado et al.1 are extremely fortunate in that their institution has a monitoring system in place to track MET activations. A more ambitious, though potentially more fruitful project, would be to, examine previous afferent limb failures in an effort to identify systems factors that are more generalizable to other institutions.

The difficulties in obtaining data are 2‐fold: first in gathering the data, and second in extending the data beyond one's own institution. The very nature of QI data, eg, data that are locally obtained and relevant to a particular institution, hinders its generalizability. However, afferent limb failures are real and perhaps ubiquitous.2, 3 The challenge then, is to develop strategies that can improve the functioning of METs (both afferent and efferent limbs) regardless of the institution.

As afferent limbs of METs have been identified as a priority for future attention for the greatest benefit,2, 4 the process of analyzing root‐causes of systems failures seems to be analogous to identifying risk factors for a novel disease. Once identified, the appropriate risk‐factor modifications can be undertaken. Only by careful examination of the data can true, relevant factors be identified. For this reason, I feel that Prado et al.'s1 excellent work should be expanded upon and replicated in other institutions.

Should these types of QI projects become more amenable to extrapolation to other institutions, a predominant reporting format may be needed. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guideline http://www.squire‐statement.org/guidelines for reporting a QI project is an example of 1 such format. This is particularly relevant as hospitalists are increasingly encouraged to be more productive beyond clinical excellence. QI represents a clear avenue for this productivity, though a recent commentary suggests that most QI projects are not published or publishable.5 On the other hand, the authors of that article do advocate the development of quality dossiers analogous to educators portfolios that can be useful for promotions.5 At least 1 organization has assembled a framework in the quality portfolio in anticipation of the utility of quality dossiers.6