Quality health care has been defined as the maximization of desired outcomes while minimizing undesirable consequences. Therefore, the optimal antimicrobial agent for a given clinical condition will be one that is the most rapidly effective, produces the least patient discomfort, results in minimal disruption of the patient's or hospital flora, and causes minimal dissatisfaction with the treatment program and its attendant costs. The clinical utility of antimicrobials is generally judged on the basis of in vitro activity, kinetic disposition, resistance trends, safety, and cost. Fluoroquinolones possess characteristics in each of these areas; for example, broad, potent gram‐negative spectrum coupled with excellent oral absorption and tissue penetration, and relative safety and reduced cost compared with parenteral therapy. Drawbacks include the emergence of resistance among certain bacteria, particularly staphylococci andPseudomonas aeruginosa, drug interactions that may compromise efficacy, and greater cost than other potentially useful oral antimicrobial agents. Indications for the agents' use can be categorized as appropriate (gram‐negative osteomyelitis, complicated urinary tract infection, prostatitis, certain sexually transmitted diseases, bacterial gastroenteritis), potential (gastrointestinal tract decontamination in granulocytopenic patients, exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nosocomial pneumonia and bacteremia, eradication of certain bacterial carrier states), or inappropriate (community‐acquired pulmonary infections, especially aspiration pneumonitis, serious gram‐positive infections, uncomplicated urinary tract infection, surgical prophylaxis except prostatic surgery). Gram‐negative osteomyelitis serves as a model to demonstrate the fluoroquinolones as agents for quality health care. Current and future investigations should focus on the cost effectiveness and cost utility of t