Search

Objectives: We sought to compare the performance of the 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Pediatric criteria for ventilator-associated pneumonia, the 2013 Adult Ventilator-Associated Condition criteria, the new Draft Pediatric Ventilator-Associated Condition criteria, and physician-diagnosed ventilator-associated pneumonia in a cohort of PICU patients., Design: Secondary analysis of a previously conducted prospective observational study., Setting: PICU within a tertiary care children's hospital between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2011., Patients: Patients between 31 days and 18 years old, mechanically ventilated via endotracheal tube for more than 72 hours and no limitations of care., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Ventilator-associated pneumonia criteria applied in real time and ventilator-associated condition criteria applied retrospectively. Outcomes assessed between cases and noncases within criteria. Of the 133 eligible participants, 24 (18%) had ventilator-associated pneumonia by 2008 Pediatric criteria and 27 (20%) by physician diagnosis. Sixteen (12%) and 10 (8%) had ventilator-associated condition by 2013 Adult and Draft Pediatric criteria, respectively. We found significant overlap between cases identified with 2008 Pediatric criteria and physician diagnosis (p = 0.549), but comparisons between the other definitions revealed that the newer criteria identify different patients than previous Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ventilator-associated pneumonia criteria and physician diagnosis (p < 0.01). Although 20 participants were diagnosed with ventilator-associated pneumonia by 2008 Pediatric criteria and physician diagnosis, only three participants were identified by all four criteria. Three subjects uniquely identified by the Draft Pediatric criteria were noninfectious in etiology. Cases identified by all criteria except Draft Pediatric had higher ratios of actual ICU length of stay to Pediatric Risk of Mortality III-adjusted expected length of stay compared with noncases., Conclusions: The Draft Pediatric criteria identify fewer and different patients than previous ventilator-associated pneumonia criteria or physician diagnosis, potentially missing patients with preventable harms, but also identified patients with potentially preventable noninfectious respiratory deteriorations. Further investigations are required to maximize the identification of patients with preventable harms from mechanical ventilation.

Objective: To assess the variation between racial/ethnic groups in emergency department (ED) treatment of asthma for pediatric patients., Methods: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of pediatric (2-18 years) asthma visits among 6 EDs in the Upper Midwest between June 2011 and May 2012. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to assess the odds of receiving steroids, radiology tests, and returning to the ED within 30 days. We conducted a subanalysis of asthma visits where patients received at least 1 albuterol treatment in the ED., Results: The sample included 2909 asthma visits by 1755 patients who were discharged home from the ED. After adjusting for demographics, insurance type, and triage score, African American (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-2.26) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.22-2.22) patients had higher odds of receiving steroids compared with whites. African Americans (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.46-0.74) also had lower odds of radiological testing compared with whites. Asians had the lowest odds of 30-day ED revisits (aOR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.84), with no other significant differences detected between racial/ethnic groups. Subgroup analyses of asthma patients who received albuterol revealed similar results, with American Indians showing lower odds of radiological testing as well (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.01)., Conclusions: In this study, children from racial/ethnic minority groups had higher odds of steroid administration and lower odds of radiological testing compared with white children. The underlying reasons for these differences are likely multifactorial, including varying levels of disease severity, health literacy, and access to care.

Evidence-based technology assessment can help answer critical questions concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate uses of medical technologies. This practice can be used to avoid the promotion of ineffective technologies and the premature diffusion of technologies that have not been demonstrated to improve patient-oriented health outcomes, both of which draw resources from effective and appropriate medical care. This article describes the process of such evaluation as undertaken by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center. The key components of the assessment process are described, including the problem formulation and evaluation of study quality, as well as the process by which the available evidence is judged against the five Technology Evaluation Center criteria.