Last year, I celebrated 20 years in practice posteresidency training. Some would consider me late in my "mid-career" phase given my age, while others would argue that my appointment of professor marks me as early "late career." Regardless of the semantics, I would say one of the biggest changes that I have observed in our health care system over the past 20 years has been an increased focus on patient safety. Using the search phrase patient safety in PubMed, the resulting published articles have exploded, from just 71 in 1999 to almost 5000 in 2019. 1 I would like to share a story from my field, infectious diseases, that I think illustrates how our practice has changed to reflect this increased focus on patient safety.During my residency training, the prevailing thinking in managing osteomyelitis in children was to use IV antibiotics, administered via a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), as the primary means of treatment. 2 The duration of therapy was 4e6 weeks, and only some practitioners were using oral antibiotics in the later stages of therapy in patients who had improved very quickly. 3 When I became a fellow at UCLA, my mentor, Paul Krogstad, taught me to be more aggressive in transitioning to oral therapy once the most severe phase of the infection was over. We used clinical improvement, along with normalization of C-reactive protein, as the primary indicators of the appropriate time to switch to oral antibiotics. Despite my individual training, for many years the field was still rooted in the use of long-term IV therapy as the "safer" option. Many providers valued the higher serum drug levels that came with IV therapy and the associated increased concentration gradient to drive more antibiotic into the infected bone. I spent many a conversation during my early faculty years advocating for an early switch to oral agents, citing the decreased cost, increased convenience of oral dosing, and equivalent long-term outcomes. Nonetheless, those practitioners transitioning to oral therapy still seemed to be in the minority.In 2009, an article was published that served as a catalyst to change opinion. Zaoutis et al. 4 used a large pediatrics administrative database to compare outcomes in children with osteomyelitis treated with IV only or transitioned to oral antibiotics at any point in their therapy. They demonstrated that children who were transitioned to oral therapy had outcomes similar to those treated with IV antibiotics. They also demonstrated that children receiving IV therapy had increased rates of adverse events and catheter-related complications compared with those in children treated with oral antibiotics. Those results seem obvious now, but the article served to change the conversation about which treatment option was "safer" for patients. Since that time, our approach to the treatment of osteomyelitis has completely changed, such that transition to oral therapy is the standard of care and a provider needs to justify a plan for long-term IV antibiotic therapy via PICC line. A similar moveme...