Search

Objectives: Ticket to Home (TTH), a survey tool designed to assess parental comprehension of their child's hospitalization and postdischarge care needs, allows providers to address knowledge gaps before discharge. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of TTH on parents' retention of discharge teaching., Methods: In this pilot study, we enrolled a convenience sample of families admitted to pediatric hospital medicine and randomly assigned families on the basis of team assignment. The intervention group received TTH before discharge. The control group received usual care (without TTH survey tool). Both groups were sent a survey 24 to 72 hours postdischarge to assess parental understanding of discharge teaching. A senior-level provider also completed a survey; responses were compared with evaluate parent level of understanding. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used for analysis., Results: Although 495 parents consented to participate, only 100 completed the necessary surveys (41 intervention and 59 control). Both groups showed high parent-provider concordance regarding reason for admission (92.7% intervention versus 86.4% control; P = .33). The intervention group had significantly higher concordance for return precautions (90.2% vs 58.2%; P < .001), which remained significant when controlling for covariates (odds ratio 6.24, 95% confidence interval 1.78-21.93). Most parents in the intervention group felt sharing TTH responses with their medical team was beneficial (95.0%)., Conclusions: Parents who received TTH before discharge were more likely to accurately recall return precautions and valued sharing TTH results with the team. Given that response bias may have affected pilot results, additional studies in which researchers use larger samples with more diverse patient populations is required., Competing Interests: FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: Reports show that many patients do not use their pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) effectively. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommends that health-care providers educate and assess patients' pMDI technique at each opportunity. However, limited data exist regarding how often pediatric primary care providers perform assessments and which methods they use. We sought to (1) identify instructional methods used to teach pMDI use, (2) describe how pMDI use is reassessed at follow-up visits, and (3) describe primary care provider attitudes and barriers to in-office pMDI instruction., Methods: A 34-item electronic survey was distributed from August to December 2016 via E-mail to local pediatric primary care providers. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis., Results: Sixty two of 223 potential primary care providers (28%) responded. Physicians and nurse practitioners were identified most often as the providers of pMDI education (53%). When first prescribing a pMDI, only 10% reported having the patient practice inhaler use in the office and receive feedback. Only 19% "always" reassessed the technique, even for patients with poorly controlled asthma. Among those who reassessed the technique, most (76%) did so verbally, and only 42% asked the patients to demonstrate pMDI use. Only 32% reported that typical patient education in their setting was adequate to ensure proper pMDI use. Commonly cited barriers included time (84%) and access to demo pMDIs (67%). Provider solutions included video tutorials and access to demo inhalers., Conclusions: Many pediatric primary care providers did not demonstrate or have patients practice pMDI use when teaching or assessing pMDI technique, and the reassessment rate was low even for patients with poorly controlled asthma. Identifying and training a consistent pMDI educator and obtaining demo pMDIs may abate some barriers. Respiratory therapists could appropriately fulfill this educator role. Brief, repeated pMDI practice for motor learning could promote more stable pMDI mastery., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2019 by Daedalus Enterprises.)

Objective: To determine the extent of variability in testing and treatment of children with bronchiolitis requiring intensive care., Methods: This prospective, multicenter observational study included 16 academic children's hospitals across the United States during the 2007 to 2010 fall and winter seasons. The study included children<2 years old hospitalized with bronchiolitis who required admission to the ICU and/or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) within 24 hours of admission. Among the 2207 enrolled patients with bronchiolitis, 342 children met inclusion criteria. Clinical data and nasopharyngeal aspirates were collected., Results: Respiratory distress severity scores and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated. The study patients' median age was 2.6 months, and 59% were male. Across the 16 sites, the median respiratory distress severity score was 5.1 (interquartile range: 4.5-5.4; P<.001). The median value of the percentages for all sites using CPAP was 15% (range: 3%-100%), intubation was 26% (range: 0%-100%), and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) was 24% (range: 0%-94%). Adjusting for site-specific random effects (as well as children's demographic characteristics and severity of bronchiolitis), the intraclass correlation coefficient for CPAP and/or intubation was 21% (95% confidence interval: 8-44); for HFNC, it was 44.7% (95% confidence interval: 24-67)., Conclusions: In this multicenter study of children requiring intensive care for bronchiolitis, we identified substantial institutional variability in testing and treatment, including use of CPAP, intubation, and HFNC. These differences were not explained by between-site differences in patient characteristics, including severity of illness. Further research is needed to identify best practices for intensive care interventions for this major cause of pediatric hospitalization., (Copyright © 2015 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)