Search

ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the international variation in the use of evidence-based management (EBM) in bronchiolitis. We hypothesised that management consistent with full-EBM practices is associated with the research network of care, adjusted for patient-level characteristics. Secondary objectives were to determine the association between full-EBM and (1) hospitalisation and (2) emergency department (ED) revisits resulting in hospitalisation within 21 days.DesignA secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study.Setting38 paediatric EDs belonging to the Paediatric Emergency Research Network in Canada, USA, Australia/New Zealand UK/Ireland and Spain/Portugal.PatientsOtherwise healthy infants 2-11 months old diagnosed with bronchiolitis between 1 January 2013 and 31 December, 2013.Outcome measuresPrimary outcome was management consistent with full-EBM, that is, no bronchodilators/corticosteroids/antibiotics, no chest radiography or laboratory testing. Secondary outcomes included hospitalisations during the index and subsequent ED visits.Results1137/2356 (48.3%) infants received full-EBM (ranging from 13.2% in Spain/Portugal to 72.3% in UK/Ireland). Compared with the UK/Ireland, the adjusted ORs (aOR) of full-EBM receipt were lower in Spain/Portugal (aOR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.29), Canada (aOR 0.13 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.31) and USA (aOR 0.16 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35). EBM was less likely in infants with dehydration (aOR 0.49 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.71)), chest retractions (aOR 0.69 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.91)) and nasal flaring (aOR 0.69 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.92)). EBM was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation at the index visit (aOR 0.77 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.98)) but not at revisits (aOR 1.17 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.85)).ConclusionsInfants with bronchiolitis frequently do not receive full-EBM ED management, particularly those outside of the UK/Ireland. Furthermore, there is marked variation in full-EBM between paediatric emergency networks, and full-EBM delivery is associated with lower likelihood of hospitalisation. Given the global bronchiolitis burden, international ED-focused deimplementation of non-indicated interventions to enhance EBM is needed.

ObjectivesPediatric appendicitis remains a challenging diagnosis in the emergency department (ED). Available risk prediction algorithms may contribute to excessive ED imaging studies. Incorporation of physician gestalt assessment could help refine predictive tools and improve diagnostic imaging decisions.MethodsThis study was a subanalysis of a parent study that prospectively enrolled patients ages 5 to 20.9 years with a chief complaint of abdominal pain presenting to 11 community EDs within an integrated delivery system between October 1, 2016, and September 30, 2018. Prior to diagnostic imaging, attending emergency physicians enrolled patients with ≤5 days of right-sided or diffuse abdominal pain using a Web-based application embedded in the electronic health record. Predicted risk (gestalt) of acute appendicitis was prospectively entered using a sliding scale from 1% to 100%. As a planned secondary analysis, we assessed the performance of gestalt via c-statistics of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves; tested associations between gestalt performance and patient, physician, and facility characteristics; and examined clinical characteristics affecting gestalt estimates.ResultsOf 3,426 patients, 334 (9.8%) had confirmed appendicitis. Physician gestalt had excellent ROC curve characteristics (c-statistic = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.81 to 0.85), performing particularly well in the low-risk strata (appendicitis rate = 1.1% in gestalt 1%-10% range, negative predictive value of 98.9% for appendicitis diagnosis). Physicians with ≥5 years since medical school graduation demonstrated improved gestalt performance over those with less experience (p = 0.007). All clinical characteristics tested, except pain

ObjectiveTo test the hypotheses that use of the Head CT Choice decision aid would be similarly effective in all parent/patient dyads but parents with high (vs low) numeracy experience a greater increase in knowledge while those with low (vs high) health literacy experience a greater increase in trust.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial conducted at seven sites. One hundred seventy-two clinicians caring for 971 children at intermediate risk for clinically important traumatic brain injuries were randomized to shared decision making facilitated by the DA (n = 493) or to usual care (n = 478). We assessed for subgroup effects based on patient and parent characteristics, including socioeconomic status (health literacy, numeracy and income). We tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site.ResultsThe decision aid did not increase knowledge more in parents with high numeracy (P for interaction [Pint ] = 0.14) or physician trust more in parents with low health literacy (Pint  = 0.34). The decision aid decreased decisional conflict more in non-white parents (decisional conflict scale, -8.14, 95% CI: -12.33 to -3.95; Pint  = 0.05) and increased physician trust more in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents (trust in physician scale, OR: 8.59, 95% CI: 2.35-14.83; Pint  = 0.04).ConclusionsUse of the Head CT Choice decision aid resulted in less decisional conflict in non-white parents and greater physician trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents. Decision aids may be particularly effective in potentially vulnerable parents.

Prospective enrollment of research subjects in the fast-paced emergency department (ED) is challenging. We sought to develop a software application to increase real-time clinical trial enrollment during an ED visit. The Prospective Intelligence System for Clinical Emergency Services (PISCES) scans the electronic health record during ED encounters for preselected clinical characteristics of potentially eligible study participants and notifies the treating physician via mobile phone text alerts. PISCES alerts began 3 months into a cluster randomized trial of an electronic health record-based risk stratification tool for pediatric abdominal pain in 11 Northern California EDs. We compared aggregate enrollment before (2577 eligible patients, October 2016 to December 2016) and after (12 049 eligible patients, January 2017 to January 2018) PISCES implementation. Enrollment increased from 10.8% to 21.1% following PISCES implementations (P

BackgroundAppendicitis is a common surgical emergency in children, yet diagnosis can be challenging. An electronic health record (EHR) based, clinical decision support (CDS) system called Appy CDS was designed to help guide management of pediatric patients with acute abdominal pain within the Health Care Systems Research Network (HCSRN).ObjectivesTo describe the development and implementation of a clinical decision support tool (Appy CDS) built independently but synergistically at two large HCSRN affiliated health systems using well-established platforms, and to assess the tool's Triage component, aiming to identify pediatric patients at increased risk for appendicitis.ResultsDespite differences by site in design and implementation, such as the use of alerts, incorporating gestalt, and other workflow variations across sites, using simple screening questions and automated exclusions, both systems were able to identify a population with similar appendicitis rates (11.8 percent and 10.6 percent), where use of the full Appy CDS would be indicated.DiscussionThese 2 HCSRN sites designed Appy CDS to capture a population at risk for appendicitis and deliver CDS to that population while remaining locally relevant and adhering to organizational preferences. Despite different approaches to point-of-care CDS, the sites have identified similar cohorts with nearly identical background rates of appendicitis.Next stepsThe full Appy CDS tool, providing personalized risk assessment and tailored recommendations, is undergoing evaluation as part of a pragmatic cluster randomized trial aiming to reduce reliance on advanced diagnostic imaging. The novel approaches to CDS we present could serve as the basis for future ED interventions.

We sought to develop and validate a clinical calculator that can be used to quantify risk for appendicitis on a continuous scale for patients with acute abdominal pain. The pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC) was developed and validated through secondary analyses of 3 distinct cohorts. The derivation sample included visits to 9 pediatric emergency departments between March 2009 and April 2010. The validation sample included visits to a single pediatric emergency department from 2003 to 2004 and 2013 to 2015. Variables evaluated were as follows: age, sex, temperature, nausea and/or vomiting, pain duration, pain location, pain with walking, pain migration, guarding, white blood cell count, and absolute neutrophil count. We used stepwise regression to develop and select the best model. Test performance of the pARC was compared with the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS). The derivation sample included 2423 children, 40% of whom had appendicitis. The validation sample included 1426 children, 35% of whom had appendicitis. The final pARC model included the following variables: sex, age, duration of pain, guarding, pain migration, maximal tenderness in the right-lower quadrant, and absolute neutrophil count. In the validation sample, the pARC exhibited near perfect calibration and a high degree of discrimination (area under the curve: 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.83 to 0.87) and outperformed the PAS (area under the curve: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 0.80). By using the pARC, almost half of patients in the validation cohort could be accurately classified as at 8. In our validation cohort of patients with acute abdominal pain, the pARC accurately quantified risk for appendicitis.

Background: Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of youth morbidity. However, limited nationally representative data are available to characterize the occurrence of unintentional injuries at US schools. Given this paucity, we characterized secular trends in unintentional injuries at schools that led to emergency department (ED) visits. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program from 2001 to 2013 compared injuries occurring at schools to injuries occurring elsewhere in youth ages 5-18 years. Incidence rates were calculated using weighted frequency estimates as numerators and US population estimates as denominators. Results: School injuries accounted for 21% of unintentional injury-related ED visits, with an estimated annual incidence rate of 1385 injuries per 100,000 5- to 18-year-olds. Middle school-aged youth (10-13 years) had the highest annual incidence rate (1640 per 100,000 youth) compared with younger and older counterparts. School injuries were more likely to be due to sports/recreation than nonschool injuries (55% vs 41%, p < 0.0001). Importantly, no detectable change in incidence rates of school injuries between 2001 and 2013 was found (p = 0.11). Conclusions: Stagnant annual incidence rates of unintentional injuries at schools and large numbers of school-based injuries demonstrate that school-based injuries are a notable opportunity for future prevention efforts.

BackgroundBlunt head trauma is a common cause of death and disability in children worldwide. Cranial computed tomography (CT), the reference standard for the diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI), exposes children to ionizing radiation which has been linked to the development of brain tumors, leukemia, and other cancers. We describe the methods used to develop and test the effectiveness of a decision aid to facilitate shared decision-making with parents regarding whether to obtain a head CT scan or to further observe their child at home.Methods/designThis is a protocol for a multicenter clinician-level parallel randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving a decision aid, 'Head CT Choice', to a control group receiving usual care. The trial will be conducted at five diverse emergency departments (EDs) in Minnesota and California. Clinicians will be randomized to decision aid or usual care. Parents visiting the ED with children who are less than 18-years-old, have experienced blunt head trauma within 24 hours, and have one or two risk factors for clinically-important TBI (ciTBI) from the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network head injury clinical prediction rules will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of Head CT Choice on: (1) parent knowledge regarding their child's risk of ciTBI, the available diagnostic options, and the risks of radiation exposure associated with a cranial CT scan (primary outcome); (2) parent engagement in the decision-making process; (3) the degree of conflict parents experience related to feeling uninformed; (4) patient and clinician satisfaction with the decision made; (5) the rate of ciTBI at seven days; (6) the proportion of patients in whom a cranial CT scan is obtained; and (7) seven-day healthcare utilization. To capture these outcomes, we will administer parent and clinician surveys immediately after each clinical encounter, obtain video recordings of parent-clinician discussions, administer parent healthcare utilization diaries, analyze hospital billing records, review the electronic medical record, and conduct telephone follow-up.DiscussionThis multicenter trial will robustly assess the effectiveness of a decision aid on patient-centered outcomes, safety, and healthcare utilization in parents of children with minor head trauma in five diverse EDs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02063087. Registration date February 13, 2014.

Background During the 2022–2023 influenza season, the United States experienced the highest influenza-associated pediatric hospitalization rate since 2010–2011. Influenza A/H3N2 infections were predominant. Methods We analyzed acute respiratory illness (ARI)–associated emergency department or urgent care (ED/UC) encounters or hospitalizations at 3 health systems among children and adolescents aged 6 months–17 years who had influenza molecular testing during October 2022–March 2023. We estimated influenza A vaccine effectiveness (VE) using a test-negative approach. The odds of vaccination among influenza-A–positive cases and influenza-negative controls were compared after adjusting for confounders and applying inverse-propensity-to-be-vaccinated weights. We developed overall and age-stratified VE models. Results Overall, 13 547 of 44 787 (30.2%) eligible ED/UC encounters and 263 of 1862 (14.1%) hospitalizations were influenza-A–positive cases. Among ED/UC patients, 15.2% of influenza-positive versus 27.1% of influenza-negative patients were vaccinated; VE was 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44–52%) overall, 53% (95% CI, 47–58%) among children aged 6 months–4 years, and 38% (95% CI, 30–45%) among those aged 9–17 years. Among hospitalizations, 17.5% of influenza-positive versus 33.4% of influenza-negative patients were vaccinated; VE was 40% (95% CI, 6–61%) overall, 56% (95% CI, 23–75%) among children ages 6 months–4 years, and 46% (95% CI, 2–70%) among those 5–17 years. Conclusions During the 2022–2023 influenza season, vaccination reduced the risk of influenza-associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalizations by almost half (overall VE, 40–48%). Influenza vaccination is a critical tool to prevent moderate-to-severe influenza illness in children and adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to develop with emerging variants, expanding population-level immunity, and advances in clinical care. We describe changes in the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 hospitalizations and risk factors for critical outcomes over time. Methods We included adults aged ≥18 years from 10 states hospitalized with COVID-19 June 2021–March 2023. We evaluated changes in demographics, clinical characteristics, and critical outcomes (intensive care unit admission and/or death) and evaluated critical outcomes risk factors (risk ratios [RRs]), stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status. Results A total of 60 488 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations were included in the analysis. Among those hospitalized, median age increased from 60 to 75 years, proportion vaccinated increased from 18.2% to 70.1%, and critical outcomes declined from 24.8% to 19.4% (all P <.001) between the Delta (June–December, 2021) and post-BA.4/BA.5 (September 2022–March 2023) periods. Hospitalization events with critical outcomes had a higher proportion of ≥4 categories of medical condition categories assessed (32.8%) compared to all hospitalizations (23.0%). Critical outcome risk factors were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated populations; presence of ≥4 medical condition categories was most strongly associated with risk of critical outcomes regardless of vaccine status (unvaccinated: adjusted RR, 2.27 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.14–2.41]; vaccinated: adjusted RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.56–1.92]) across periods. Conclusions The proportion of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who experienced critical outcomes decreased with time, and median patient age increased with time. Multimorbidity was most strongly associated with critical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children are disproportionally affected by Lyme disease, which is diagnosed in [approximately equal to]300,000 persons in the United States each year (1). Clinicians diagnose Lyme disease using a 2-tier examination [...]

Adults with disabilities are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Using data across 9 states during Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods (June 2021–September 2022), we evaluated the effectiveness of the original monovalent COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines among 521 206 emergency department/urgent care encounters (11 471 [2%] in patients with a documented disability) and 139 548 hospitalizations (16 569 [12%] in patients with a disability) for laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 illness in adults (aged ≥18 years). Across variant periods and for the primary series or booster doses, vaccine effectiveness was similar in those with and those without a disability. These findings highlight the importance of adults with disabilities staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]