Search

BACKGROUND: Children with sickle cell anemia (SCA) are at increased risk for invasive pneumococcal disease; antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduces this risk. We calculated the proportion of children with SCA who received ≥300 days of antibiotic prophylaxis and identified predictors of such receipt. METHODS: Children aged 3 months to 5 years with SCA were identified by the presence of 3 or more Medicaid claims with a diagnosis of SCA within a calendar year (2005–2012) in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, and Texas. Receipt of antibiotics was identified through claims for filled prescriptions. The outcome, receipt of ≥300 days of antibiotics, was assessed annually by using varying classifications of antibiotics. By using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations, we estimated the odds of receiving ≥300 days of antibiotics, with potential predictors of age, sex, year, state, and health services use. RESULTS: A total of 2821 children contributed 5014 person-years. Overall, only 18% of children received ≥300 days of antibiotics. Each additional sickle cell disease-related outpatient visit (odds ratio = 1.01, 95% confidence interval: 1.01–1.02) and well-child visit (odds ratio = 1.08, 95% confidence interval: 1.02–1.13) was associated with incrementally increased odds of receiving ≥300 days of antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Despite national recommendations and proven lifesaving benefit, antibiotic prophylaxis rates are low among children with SCA. Numerous health care encounters may offer an opportunity for intervention; in addition, such interventions likely need to include social factors that may affect the ability for a child to receive and adhere to antibiotic prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sepsis syndrome, comprising sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, is a leading cause of child mortality and morbidity, for which the delivery of time-sensitive care leads to improved survival. We aimed to describe the development and testing of quality measures for in-hospital care of pediatric sepsis syndrome. METHODS: Seven measures of quality of care for children hospitalized with sepsis syndrome were developed by using an iterative process including literature review, development of concepts and candidate measures, and selection of measures for feasibility and importance by 2 panels of experts. The measures were tested for reliability and validity among children 0 to 18 years of age hospitalized with sepsis syndrome from January 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013. RESULTS: Of 27 hospitals, 59% had no protocol for the identification and treatment of pediatric sepsis syndrome. Blood culture was performed in only 70% of patients with pediatric sepsis syndrome. Antibiotics were administered within 1 hour of diagnosis in 70% of patients with pediatric severe sepsis or septic shock, and timely fluid resuscitation was performed in 50% of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Documentation of heart rate during fluid resuscitation of children with severe sepsis or septic shock was observed in 18% of cases. Two measures could not be rigorously tested for validity and reliability given the rarity of septic shock and were deemed infeasible. CONCLUSIONS: This multisite study to develop and validate measures of the quality of hospital care of children with sepsis syndrome highlights the existence of important gaps in delivery of care.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores the use of spirometry in primary care settings. METHODS: A 4-page survey was mailed to a national, random sample of office-based family physicians and pediatricians. Survey items addressed knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding spirometry and standardized clinical vignettes. Data were analyzed by using χ2 tests and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 360 respondents who provided care to children with asthma, 52% used spirometry in clinical practice, whereas 80% used peak flow meters and 10% used no lung function tests. Only 21% routinely used spirometry for all guideline-recommended clinical situations. More family physicians than pediatricians reported using spirometry (75% vs 35%; P < .0001), and family physicians were more comfortable in interpreting spirometric results (50% vs 25%; P < .0001). Only one-half of respondents interpreted correctly the spirometric results in a standardized clinical vignette, and the frequency of underrating asthma severity increased with the inclusion of spirometric results. The most common barriers to the use of spirometry, that is, time and training, were cited more often by physicians who did not use spirometry. Two-thirds of respondents agreed that they would want additional training regarding implementing spirometry in their clinical practices. CONCLUSIONS: The use of spirometry in primary care settings for children with asthma does not conform to national guidelines. Widespread implementation of national asthma guidelines likely would require a major educational initiative to address deficiencies in spirometry interpretation and other barriers.

BACKGROUND. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute asthma guidelines recommend that children with asthma receive spirometry testing “at least every 1 to 2 years to assess the maintenance of airway function.”OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this work was to describe: (1) how often children with asthma receive spirometry testing, (2) what factors are associated with receipt of spirometry testing, and (3) the impact of spirometry testing on subsequent emergency department visits for asthma.METHODS. We analyzed all pediatric asthma claims data from a university-based managed care organization for a 3-year period (January 2001 to December 2003). We included all of the continuously enrolled patients with active asthma between 7 and 21 years of age. Our outcomes of interest were the presence of ≥1 claim for spirometry testing (Common Procedural Terminology 94010–6, 94060, 94070, or 94150) and the time to emergency department visit. We used multivariate logistic regression to determine factors associated with receipt of spirometry and survival analyses techniques to assess the association between receipt of spirometry with the likelihood of an emergency department asthma visit in the next year, controlling for patient age, gender, severity of illness, and type of insurance.RESULTS. There were 2688 eligible children of whom 1509 (56%) were male, 324 (12%) had Medicaid insurance, and 624 (24%) had persistent asthma in the initial year. Of the 2688 children, only 612 (23%) had ≥1 claim for spirometry testing during the study period. In all of the multivariate logistic analysis models, increased severity of illness was consistently associated with increased likelihood of receiving spirometry testing. Compared with patients without Medicaid insurance, children with Medicaid insurance were consistently less likely to receive spirometry testing. After adjusting for age, gender, severity, and insurance type, receipt of spirometry did not affect the likelihood of future emergency department asthma use.CONCLUSIONS. Children with Medicaid insurance are less likely to receive spirometry testing. Reasons may be because of access to care, inadequate provider referral for testing, or patient preferences. Objective lung function tests, such as spirometry, are a potentially important component of monitoring chronic disease status. However, it is not clear whether spirometry testing by itself, completed every 1 to 2 years, helps prevent the likelihood of emergency department asthma visits. Compared with guideline recommendations, spirometry is underused; however, additional work is needed to understand how to best integrate such testing to improve asthma outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:To describe parents' experiences and preferences regarding the use of different communication modes for immunization reminder/recall messages.METHODS:A cross-sectional, Internet-based survey of a nationally representative sample of parents of children 0 to 17 years of age was performed. Survey items included questions regarding previous receipt of reminder/recall notices; preferences for how to receive notices in the future; recentness of changes to home address, home telephone, cell phone, and e-mail information; child's usual site for immunization; and willingness to register cell phone numbers with the child's immunization provider to receive future cell phone or text messages about immunization.RESULTS:Overall, 31% of parents had ever received an immunization reminder/recall notice, usually by mail. For future immunization messages, approximately one-third of parents preferred mail or calls to the home telephone, 16% preferred e-mail, and 8% preferred calls to a cell phone. More than one-half of parents had maintained the same home address, home telephone number, cell phone number, or e-mail address for the previous 3 years. More than one-half of parents were willing to register their cell phone numbers with their child's usual immunization provider.CONCLUSIONS:Although most parents continue to prefer the traditional modes for immunization reminder/recall messages, 1 in 4 preferred newer technologies, and parents' e-mail and cell phone information was surprisingly stable. More than one-half of the parents were willing to register their cell phone numbers for future immunization messaging via cell phone calls or text messages. Research and implementation efforts might benefit from focusing on this willing population.