Was it appropriate to prescribe Augmentin (amoxicillin-clavulanate) to a patient with a history of cellulitis and diabetes who presented with redness and soreness on their leg, despite having taken a 10-day course of cephalexin (cephalexin), without an in-person appointment?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: January 28, 2026View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Peer Review Case Summary: Telephone Management of Diabetic Patient with Leg Cellulitis

Case Details and Timeline

The patient, with documented history of diabetes and cellulitis, contacted the clinic regarding redness and soreness on his leg. He reported self-treating with a 10-day course of cephalexin (from home supply) that had been completed 2 days prior to the call. The provider prescribed Augmentin without an in-person evaluation and advised the patient to call if symptoms changed or worsened.

Determination of Care Appropriateness

The care provided was inappropriate and represents a significant deviation from standard practice for diabetic foot/leg infections, as this patient required immediate in-person evaluation rather than empiric telephone-based antibiotic escalation.

Critical Deficiencies in Clinical Management

Failure to Perform Required In-Person Assessment

  • The IWGDF/IDSA 2023 guidelines emphasize that proper assessment of diabetic foot/leg infections requires direct examination to classify infection severity, evaluate for deep tissue involvement, assess vascular status, and determine if surgical intervention is needed 1.

  • Diabetic patients with cellulitis require immediate evaluation because approximately 20% of necrotizing fasciitis cases present without visible skin lesions, and clinical examination is essential to detect warning signs such as wooden-hard subcutaneous tissues, skin discoloration, gangrene, or anesthesia of involved skin 2.

  • The IDSA guidelines specify that patients with severe infections require immediate hospitalization, and determining severity requires physical examination—something impossible via telephone 1, 3.

  • Peripheral neuropathy in diabetic patients masks pain and allows infections to progress unrecognized, making visual and tactile examination mandatory 1, 2.

Inappropriate Antibiotic Selection Without Clinical Data

  • Augmentin (amoxicillin-clavulanate) is not recommended as empiric therapy for diabetic cellulitis that has failed initial cephalexin treatment 1.

  • The IWGDF/IDSA 2023 guidelines state that antibiotic selection should be based on infection severity classification, likely pathogens, local resistance patterns, and clinical examination findings—none of which were obtained in this case 1.

  • For mild diabetic soft tissue infections, gram-positive coverage (beta-hemolytic streptococci and S. aureus) is appropriate, but treatment failure after 10 days of cephalexin suggests either: (1) incorrect diagnosis, (2) resistant organisms, (3) inadequate source control, (4) progression to deeper infection, or (5) non-infectious etiology 1.

  • Switching antibiotics without cultures or examination risks masking progressive infection while providing false reassurance 1.

Inadequate Response to Treatment Failure

  • The patient had completed a full 10-day course of cephalexin with persistent symptoms—this represents treatment failure requiring diagnostic re-evaluation, not empiric escalation 1.

  • IDSA guidelines specify that if infection has not resolved after appropriate therapy, the patient should be re-evaluated with consideration for further diagnostic studies including deep tissue cultures, imaging, and assessment for osteomyelitis 1.

  • The provider missed the opportunity to obtain crucial diagnostic information: wound cultures from debrided tissue, assessment for abscess or deeper infection, probe-to-bone testing if ulceration present, and evaluation of vascular status 1.

Documentation Deficiencies

  • No documentation of infection severity classification (mild, moderate, or severe) 1.
  • No assessment of systemic signs (fever, tachycardia, hypotension) that would indicate need for urgent evaluation 1, 2, 3.
  • No documentation of wound characteristics: size, depth, drainage, odor, or surrounding tissue quality 1.
  • No vascular assessment documented (pulses, capillary refill, skin temperature) 1.
  • No assessment for bone involvement, which occurs commonly in diabetic foot infections 1.
  • No documentation of glycemic control status, which directly impacts infection outcomes 1, 3.

Evidence-Based Management That Should Have Occurred

Immediate In-Person Evaluation Required

  • All diabetic patients with persistent or worsening skin/soft tissue infection after completing antibiotic therapy require same-day clinical evaluation 1, 3.

  • Physical examination should assess: extent of erythema (measure and mark borders), presence of warmth/swelling/tenderness, skin integrity, presence of purulence or necrosis, lymphangitis, systemic toxicity signs, peripheral pulses, and probe-to-bone if ulcer present 1, 2.

Appropriate Diagnostic Workup

  • Deep tissue cultures should be obtained via curettage or biopsy of debrided wound base, not superficial swabs 1, 3.

  • Blood cultures if systemic signs present 1, 3.

  • Plain radiographs to evaluate for gas, foreign body, or osteomyelitis (though early osteomyelitis may not be visible) 1.

  • Laboratory assessment including CBC, metabolic panel, and hemoglobin A1c 3.

Correct Antibiotic Approach

  • For treatment failure after cephalexin in a diabetic patient, empiric escalation should cover MRSA, gram-negatives, and anaerobes pending culture results 1, 4.

  • However, research shows that among diabetic patients with cellulitis and positive cultures, gram-negative pathogens are not significantly more common than in non-diabetics (7% vs 12%), and gram-positive organisms predominate (90% of cases) 4.

  • The key issue is that antibiotic selection should follow, not precede, proper clinical assessment and culture acquisition 1.

Common Pitfalls Demonstrated in This Case

  • Telephone management of diabetic infections: Diabetic patients have impaired inflammatory responses and neuropathy that mask infection severity, making remote assessment unreliable 1, 2.

  • Antibiotic escalation without source control: Many diabetic infections require debridement, drainage, or surgical intervention that antibiotics alone cannot address 1.

  • Assuming treatment failure equals antibiotic resistance: Treatment failure may indicate abscess, osteomyelitis, ischemia, or non-infectious diagnosis rather than resistant organisms 1.

  • Missing the window for limb salvage: Delays in proper evaluation and surgical consultation contribute to progression requiring amputation 1, 3.

Risk Stratification Implications

This patient's risk factors place him in a high-risk category requiring aggressive management:

  • Diabetes with history of cellulitis indicates recurrent infection risk and possible underlying vascular or neuropathic complications 1, 2.

  • Treatment failure after 10 days of antibiotics is a red flag for complicated infection 1.

  • Self-medication with leftover antibiotics suggests possible non-adherence or access barriers requiring social work evaluation 1.

Recommendations for System Improvement

  • Implement triage protocols requiring same-day evaluation for diabetic patients reporting skin/soft tissue infections, especially with treatment failure 1, 3.

  • Provide staff education on diabetic foot infection red flags that mandate immediate in-person assessment 1, 2, 3.

  • Establish clear documentation templates for infection assessment including severity classification, wound characteristics, and vascular status 1.

  • Create pathways for urgent multidisciplinary consultation (infectious disease, surgery, podiatry) for complex diabetic infections 1.

References

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Cellulitis in Dialysis Patients

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Management of Diabetic Ketoacidosis with Severe Infection

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Related Questions

What antibiotics (abx) are used to treat lower extremity cellulitis?
What is the recommended dose of Cephalexin (Cefalexin) for the treatment of cellulitis?
What is the recommended management of cellulitis with Keflex (cephalexin)?
What is the preferred antibiotic treatment for mild cellulitis with edema, Bactrim (sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim) or Keflex (cephalexin)?
What is a suitable outpatient antibiotic regimen for a 60-year-old male with cellulitis (bacterial skin infection) on the left thigh from a bug bite, who has type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) controlled by diet, normal kidney function, and is afebrile (without fever), excluding Augmentin (amoxicillin-clavulanate) and cephalexin?
What antibiotic treatment is recommended for a patient with vomiting, suspected to be caused by a bacterial infection, such as food poisoning or bacterial gastroenteritis?
What is the treatment approach for pediatric patients, particularly those who are immunocompromised, with severe adenovirus infections using Cidofovir?
What is the recommended treatment protocol for migraine prophylaxis using flunarizine in a patient with a history of migraines, considering potential side effects and patient demographics such as older adults or those with a history of depression?
What are the treatment options for a patient with heartburn who does not have End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)?
What are the recent updates on hormone therapy for peri-menopausal and post-menopausal women with symptoms like hot flashes and vaginal dryness in a primary care setting?
Would a whole-body Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scan be the best initial diagnostic step for an adult patient with no significant medical history and a 2.8 cm long nodule?

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.