Internal medicine patients are mostly elderly; they have multiple co-morbidities, which are usually chronic, rather than self-limiting or acute diseases. Neither administrative indicators nor co-morbidity indexes, though validated in elderly patients, are able to completely define these "complex" patients or to allow physicians to correctly "cope" with them. For the complex patients found in internal medicine wards, internists need not only to find the best diagnosis and treatment, but also to apply a complex intervention (i.e., a comprehensive assessment and both continuous and multi-disciplinary care) in order to maintain their health and ability to function and to prevent or delay disability, frailty, and displacement from home and community. The aim of this review is to underscore the differences between the concepts of co-morbidity and complexity, to discuss instruments for their measurement, and to highlight related implications, areas of uncertainty, and the responsibilities of internists in the assessment and management of inpatients of their wards. The conclusion we come to is that it is mandatory to shift from a finance/administrative-based management system to a clinical process model (clinical governance) driven by the quality of the medical outcome and the cost of achieving that outcome. From a "complexity theory" standpoint, patient-centered care and collaboration can be seen as simple rules that guide desirable behaviors in a complex system. By exploring the real complexity of our patients, we exercise the holistic, anthropologic medicine of the person that is internal medicine.

Evidence on ultrasonography of a halo around temporal arteries, either any halo or a halo 1 mm or greater in thickness, only modestly increased the probability of biopsy-proven giant-cell arteritis but did not improve the diagnostic accuracy of a careful physical examination.

The impact of compliance with Italian guidelines on the outcome of hospitalised community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in internal medicine departments was evaluated.All Fine class IV or V CAP patients were included in this multicentre, interventional, before-andafter study, composed of three phases: 1) a retrospective phase (RP; 1,443 patients); 2) a guideline implementation phase; and 3) a prospective phase (PP; 1,404 patients).Antibiotic prescription according to the guidelines increased significantly in the PP. The risk of failure at the end of the firstline therapy was significantly lower in the PP versus the RP (odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.00), particularly in Fine class V patients (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.98). Analysis of outcome in the overall population (2,847 patients) showed a statistically significant advantage for compliant versus noncompliant therapies in terms of failure rate (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.90) and an advantage in terms of mortality (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58-1.04). Antipneumococcal cephalosporin monotherapy was associated with a low success rate (68.6%) and the highest mortality (16.2%); levofloxacin alone and the combination of cephalosporin and macrolide resulted in higher success rates (79.1 and 76.7%, respectively) and significantly lower mortalities (9.1 and 5.7%, respectively).Overall, a low compliance with guidelines in the prospective phase (44%) was obtained, indicating the need for future more aggressive and proactive approaches.

No abstract

No abstract