Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A Comparison of State-Specific Pediatric Emergency Medical Facility Recognition Programs, 2020.
Boggs, Krislyn M; Voligny, Emma; Auerbach, Marc; Espinola, Janice A; Samuels-Kalow, Margaret E; Sullivan, Ashley F; Camargo, Carlos A.
Afiliação
  • Boggs KM; From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
  • Voligny E; From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
  • Auerbach M; Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
  • Espinola JA; From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
  • Samuels-Kalow ME; From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
  • Sullivan AF; From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
  • Camargo CA; From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Pediatr Emerg Care ; 40(2): 141-146, 2024 Feb 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38295194
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

Prior research suggests that the presence of state-specific pediatric emergency medical facility recognition programs (PFRPs) is associated with high emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness. The PFRPs aim to improve the quality of pediatric emergency care, but individual state programs differ. We aimed to describe the variation in PFRP characteristics and verification requirements and to describe the availability of pediatric emergency care coordinators (PECCs) in states with PFRPs.

METHODS:

In mid-2020, we collected information about each PFRP from 3 sources the state Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) website, the EMSC Innovation and Improvement Center website, or via communication with the state's EMSC program manager. For each state with a PFRP, we documented program characteristics, including program start date, number of tiers, whether participation was required/optional, and requirements for verification.

RESULTS:

Overall, we identified 17 states with active PFRPs. Five states had only 1 tier or level of recognition whereas the others had multiple. All programs did require presence of a PECC for verification. However, some PRFPs with multiple verification tiers did not require presence of a PECC to achieve each level of verification. In states with PFRPs, EDs with higher total visit volumes, a separate pediatric ED area, located in the Northeast, and earlier program start date were all more likely to have a PECC.

CONCLUSIONS:

There is variation in state PFRPs, although all prioritize the presence of a PECC. We encourage further research on the effect of different aspects of PFRPs on patient outcomes.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Planejamento em Desastres / Serviços Médicos de Emergência Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Child / Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Pediatr Emerg Care Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Planejamento em Desastres / Serviços Médicos de Emergência Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Limite: Child / Humans País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Pediatr Emerg Care Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article