During the intervention period, all 545 patients admitted were cared for with the aid of the antiinfectives-management program. Measures of processes and outcomes were compared with those for the 1136 patients admitted to the same unit during the two years before the intervention period. The use of the program led to significant reductions in orders for drugs to which the patients had reported allergies (35, vs. 146 during the preintervention period; P<0.01), excess drug dosages (87 vs. 405, P<0.01), and antibiotic-susceptibility mismatches (12 vs. 206, P<0.01). There were also marked reductions in the mean number of days of excessive drug dosage (2.7 vs. 5.9, P<0.002) and in adverse events caused by antiinfective agents (4 vs. 28, P<0.02). In analyses of patients who received antiinfective agents, those treated during the intervention period who always received the regimens recommended by the computer program (n=203) had significant reductions, as compared with those who did not always receive the recommended regimens (n= 195) and those in the preintervention cohort (n = 766), in the cost of antiinfective agents (adjusted mean, $102 vs. $427 and $340, respectively; P<0.001), in total hospital costs (adjusted mean, $26,315 vs. $44,865 and $35,283; P<0.001), and in the length of the hospital stay days (adjusted mean, 10.0 vs. 16.7 and 12.9; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS; A computerized antiinfectives-management program can improve the quality of patient care and reduce costs.

The clinical diagnosis of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) may be challenging; however, a constellation of signs including new valvular insufficiency, cardiomegaly, and heart failure should readily prompt consideration of the diagnosis of rheumatic carditis. In addition, pulmonary findings are compatible with ARF, as associated pulmonary involvement may represent rheumatic pneumonia. We report the case of a young man with ARF and rheumatic pneumonia, a previously described but rare complication of ARF.

Hospital surveillance for infection control purposes is a well-accepted method of following nosocomial infections in U.S. hospitals. However, hospital surveillance is being increasingly performed for nosocomial events in noninfectious areas, such as quality assurance and other areas of outcomes research. For the continued development of hospital surveillance in all these areas, dramatic growth in the amount of information collected will occur. To accommodate this growth and to validate new approaches in these areas, large amounts of data collection will be necessary. Collection of these data will be quite difficult without the creation of clinical hospital data bases in which large amounts of information are collected as a routine part of patient care, not as an elaborate addition to patient care. Automated hospital information systems, such as the HELP system, can facilitate the conduct of ongoing hospital surveillance not only in infection control but also in a broad range of areas, such as quality improvement outcomes research and cost-containment areas.