Use of a standardized asthma severity score to determine emergency department disposition for paediatric asthma: A cohort study.
Asthma
Clinical decision tool
Disposition from emergency
Journal
Paediatrics & child health
ISSN: 1205-7088
Titre abrégé: Paediatr Child Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815960
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
27
03
2018
accepted:
28
06
2018
entrez:
27
6
2019
pubmed:
27
6
2019
medline:
27
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We recently introduced a clinical practice pathway for the management of asthma that uses the Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) to guide emergency department (ED) treatment and disposition. The pathway recommends discharge for patients who achieve improvement to PRAM <4 at 1 hour after the last bronchodilator. We evaluated practice variation and patient outcomes associated with PRAM-directed disposition recommendations. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children aged 2 to 17 years treated for moderate asthma (PRAM score 4-7) using our asthma clinical pathway. We measured 1) the proportion of children discharged per pathway criteria who returned to our ED within 24 hours and 2) the proportion of children observed beyond the pathway discharge criteria who deteriorated (PRAM ≥4). We analyzed 385 patient records from September 2013 to February 2015. Among 145 (37.7%) patients discharged per pathway criteria, 4 (4/145; 2.8%) returned within 24 hours. The remaining 240 (62.2%) were observed beyond the pathway discharge criteria; 76/240 (31.7%) had a subsequent deterioration (PRAM score ≥ 4) and 25/240 (10.4%) were hospitalized. Of those who deteriorated, 46/76 (60.5%) worsened within the first additional hour of observation. We observed significant deviation from our PRAM-directed pathway discharge criteria and that a significant proportion of observed patients experienced clinical deterioration beyond the first hour of observation. We recommend observing children with moderate asthma for 2 or 3 hours from last bronchodilator therapy if PRAM < 4 is maintained, to capture the majority (97.7% or 99.7%) of patients who require further intervention and hospitalization.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We recently introduced a clinical practice pathway for the management of asthma that uses the Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) to guide emergency department (ED) treatment and disposition. The pathway recommends discharge for patients who achieve improvement to PRAM <4 at 1 hour after the last bronchodilator. We evaluated practice variation and patient outcomes associated with PRAM-directed disposition recommendations.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children aged 2 to 17 years treated for moderate asthma (PRAM score 4-7) using our asthma clinical pathway. We measured 1) the proportion of children discharged per pathway criteria who returned to our ED within 24 hours and 2) the proportion of children observed beyond the pathway discharge criteria who deteriorated (PRAM ≥4).
RESULTS
RESULTS
We analyzed 385 patient records from September 2013 to February 2015. Among 145 (37.7%) patients discharged per pathway criteria, 4 (4/145; 2.8%) returned within 24 hours. The remaining 240 (62.2%) were observed beyond the pathway discharge criteria; 76/240 (31.7%) had a subsequent deterioration (PRAM score ≥ 4) and 25/240 (10.4%) were hospitalized. Of those who deteriorated, 46/76 (60.5%) worsened within the first additional hour of observation.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We observed significant deviation from our PRAM-directed pathway discharge criteria and that a significant proportion of observed patients experienced clinical deterioration beyond the first hour of observation. We recommend observing children with moderate asthma for 2 or 3 hours from last bronchodilator therapy if PRAM < 4 is maintained, to capture the majority (97.7% or 99.7%) of patients who require further intervention and hospitalization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31239811
doi: 10.1093/pch/pxy125
pii: pxy125
pmc: PMC6587418
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
227-233Références
JAMA. 1999 Oct 20;282(15):1458-65
pubmed: 10535437
Qual Manag Health Care. 1999 Fall;8(1):13-21
pubmed: 10662100
Pediatrics. 2000 Mar;105(3 Pt 1):496-501
pubmed: 10699099
J Pediatr. 2000 Dec;137(6):762-8
pubmed: 11113831
J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Nov;57(11):1177-81
pubmed: 15567635
J Emerg Nurs. 2006 Apr;32(2):131-8
pubmed: 16580475
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2006 Aug;22(8):545-9
pubmed: 16912620
CJEM. 2004 Sep;6(5):321-6
pubmed: 17381988
J Pediatr. 2008 Apr;152(4):476-80, 480.e1
pubmed: 18346499
Health Rep. 2008 Jun;19(2):45-50
pubmed: 18642518
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008 Aug;24(8):505-10
pubmed: 18645538
Congenit Heart Dis. 2010 Jul-Aug;5(4):343-53
pubmed: 20653701
Can Respir J. 2010 Jul-Aug;17(4):175-82
pubmed: 20808976
Pediatrics. 2012 Jul;130(1):93-8
pubmed: 22665413
Paediatr Child Health. 2012 May;17(5):251-62
pubmed: 23633900
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 May;32(5):911-20
pubmed: 23650325
J Clin Nurs. 2015 May;24(9-10):1320-6
pubmed: 25420627
Singapore Med J. 2016 Jun;57(6):307-13
pubmed: 27353384
J Emerg Med. 2017 Jun;52(6):801-808
pubmed: 28228344
Medicina (Kaunas). 2017;53(1):66-71
pubmed: 28233682