A Framework for Quality Assurance of Pediatric Revisits to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department return visits significantly impact medical costs and patient flow. A comprehensive approach to understanding these patients is required to identify deficits in care, system level inefficiencies, and improve diagnosis specific management protocols. We aimed to identify factors needed to successfully analyze return visits to explore root causes leading to unplanned returns and inform system-level improvements. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee collaborated to develop a quality review process for return visits within 72 hours to our pediatric emergency department that were then subsequently admitted to the hospital. The committee developed methodology and a web-based tool for chart review and analysis. RESULTS: Of 197,076 ED visits (159,164 discharged at initial visit), 5390 (3.4%) patients were discharged and represented to the ED within 72 hours and 1658 (1.0%) of those resulted in admission. Using defined criteria, approximately one third (n = 564) of revisits with admission were identified for chart review. Reason for revisit included natural progression of disease (67.6%), new condition or problem (11.2%), diagnostic error (6.9%), and scheduled or planned readmissions (3.5%). All diagnostic errors had not been previously identified by ED leadership. Of the reviewed cases, most were not preventable (84.0%); however, a number of system-level actions resulted from discussion of the potentially preventable revisits. CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-two-hour ED revisits were efficiently and systematically categorized with determination of root causes and preventability. This process resulted in shared provider-level feedback, identifying trends in revisits, and implementation of system-level actions, therefore, encouraging other institutions to adopt a similar process.

Incident Reporting to Improve Patient Safety: The Effects of Process Variance on Pediatric Patient Safety in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: Medical errors threaten patient safety, especially in the pediatric emergency department (ED) where overcrowding, multiple handoffs, and workflow interruptions are common. Errors related to process variance involve situations that are not consistent with standard ED operations or routine patient care. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We performed a planned subanalysis of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network incident reporting data classified as process variance events. Confidential deidentified incident reports (IRs) were collected and classified by 2 independent investigators. Events categorized as process variance were then subtyped for severity and contributing factors. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. OUTCOME MEASURES: The study intention was to describe and measure reported medical errors related to process variance in 17 EDs in the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network from 2007 to 2008. RESULTS: Between July 2007 and June 2008, 2906 eligible reports were reviewed. Process variance events were identified in 15.4% (447/2906). The majority were related to patient flow (35.4%), handoff communication (17.2%), and patient identification errors (15.9%). Most staff involved included nurses (47.9%) and physicians (28%); trainees were infrequently reported. The majority of events did not result in harm (65.7%); 17.9% (80/447) of cases were classified as unsafe conditions but did not reach the patient. Temporary harm requiring further treatment or hospitalization was reported in 5.6% (25/447). No events resulted in permanent harm, near death, or death. Contributing factors included human factors (92.1%), in particular handoff communication, interpersonal skills, and compliance with established procedures, and system-level errors (18.1%), including unclear or unavailable policies and inadequate staffing levels. CONCLUSIONS: Although process variance events accounted for approximately 1 in 6 reported safety events, very few led to patient harm. Because human and system-level factors contributed to most of these events, our data provide an insight into potential areas for further investigation and improvements to mitigate errors in the ED setting.

Radiologic Safety Events Within a Pediatric Emergency Medicine Network.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the epidemiology of radiologic safety events using an analysis of deidentified incident reports (IRs) collected within a large multicenter pediatric emergency medicine network. METHODS: This study is a report of a planned subanalysis of IRs that were classified as radiologic events. The parent study was performed in the PECARN (Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network). Incident reports involving radiology were classified into subtypes: delay in test, delay in results, misread or changed reading, wrong patient, wrong site, or other. The severity of radiology-related incidents was characterized. Contributing factors were identified and classified as environmental, equipment, human (employee), information technology systems, parent or guardian, or systems based. RESULTS: Two hundred three (7.0%) of the 2906 IRs submitted during the study period involved radiology. Eighteen of the hospitals submitted at least 1 IR and 15 of these hospitals reported at least 1 radiologic event. The most common type of radiologic event was misread/changed reading, which accounted for over half of all IRs (50.3%). Human factors were the most frequent contributing factor identified and accounted for 67.6% of all factors. The severity of events ranged from unsafe conditions to events with temporary harm that required hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: We described the epidemiology of radiology-related IRs from a large multicenter pediatric emergency research network. The study identified specific themes regarding types of radiologic errors, including the systems issues and the contributing factors associated with those errors. Results from this analysis may help identify effective intervention strategies to ameliorate the frequency of radiology-related safety events in the emergency department setting.

Using four-phased unit-based patient safety walkrounds to uncover correctable system flaws.

BACKGROUND: A unit-based Patient Safety Leadership Walkrounds (PSWR) model was deployed in six medical/surgical units at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to identify patient safety issues in the clinical microsystem. Specific objectives of PSWR were to (1) provide a forum for frontline staff to freely report and discuss patient safety problems with unit local leaders, (2) improve teamwork and communication within and across units, and (3) develop a supportive environment in which staff and leaders brainstorm on potential solutions. METHODS: Baseline data collection and discussion with leaders and staff from the pilot units were used to create a standard set of safety tools and questions. Through multiple Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, safety tools and questions were refined, while the process of walkrounds in each of the six pilot units was customized. RESULTS: Leaders in all six pilot units indicated that PSWR helped them to uncover previously unidentified safety concerns. Top-impact areas included nurse-medical team relationship, work-flow flaws, equipment defects, staff education, and medication safety. The project engaged 149 individuals across all disciplines, including 33 physicians, and entailed 34 PSWR in its first year. Information from these pilot units initiated safety changes that spread across multiple units, with identification of hospital-wide quality and patient safety issues. CONCLUSIONS: For participating units, the PSWR process is a situational awareness tool that helps management periodically assess new or unresolved vulnerabilities that may affect safety and care quality on the unit. Unit-based PSWR help identify safety concerns at the microsystem level while improving communication about safety events across units and to hospital leaders in the macrosystem.

Reported medication events in a paediatric emergency research network: sharing to improve patient safety.

OBJECTIVE: Medication errors are an important cause of preventable morbidity, especially in children in emergency department (ED) settings. Internal use of voluntary incident reporting (IR) is common within hospitals, with little external reporting or sharing of this information across institutions. We describe the analysis of paediatric medication events (ME) reported in 18 EDs in a paediatric research network in 2007-2008. METHODS: Confidential, deidentified incident reports (IRs) were collected, and MEs were independently categorised by two investigators. Discordant responses were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: MEs (597) accounted for 19% of all IRs, with reporting rates varying 25-fold across sites. Anti-infective agents were the most commonly reported, followed by analgesics, intravenous fluids and respiratory medicines. Of the 597 MEs, 94% were medication errors and 6% adverse reactions; further analyses are reported for medication errors. Incorrect medication doses were related to incorrect weight (20%), duplicate doses (21%), and miscalculation (22%). Look-alike/sound-alike MEs were 36% of incorrect medications. Human factors contributed in 85% of reports: failure to follow established procedures (41%), calculation (13%) or judgment (12%) errors, and communication failures (20%). Outcomes were: no deaths or permanent disability, 13% patient harm, 47% reached patient (no harm), 30% near miss or unsafe conditions, and 9% unknown. CONCLUSIONS: ME reporting by the system revealed valuable data across sites on medication categories and potential human factors. Harm was infrequently reported. Our analyses identify trends and latent systems issues, suggesting areas for future interventions to reduce paediatric ED medication errors.

Creating an infrastructure for safety event reporting and analysis in a multicenter pediatric emergency department network.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital incident reporting is widely used but has had limited effectiveness for improving patient safety nationally. We describe the process of establishing a multi-institutional safety event reporting system. METHODS: A descriptive study in The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network of 22 hospital emergency departments was performed. An extensive legal analysis addressed investigators' concerns about sharing confidential incident reports (IRs): (1) the ability to identify sites and (2) potential loss of peer review statute protection. Of the 22 Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network sites, 19 received institutional approval to submit deidentified IRs to the data center. Incident reports were randomly assigned to independent review; discordance was resolved by consensus. Incident reports were categorized by type, subtype, severity, staff involved, and contributing factors. RESULTS: A total of 3,106 IRs were submitted by 18 sites in the first year. Reporting rates ranged more than 50-fold from 0.12 to 6.13 per 1000 patients. Data were sufficient to determine type of error (90% of IRs), severity (79%), staff involved (82%), and contributing factors (82%). However, contributing factors were clearly identified in only 44% of IRs and required extrapolation by investigators in 38%. The most common incidents were related to laboratory specimens (25.5%), medication administration (19.3%), and process variance, such as delays in care (14.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Incident reporting provides qualitative data concerning safety events. Perceived legal barriers to sharing confidential data can be addressed. Large variability in reporting rates and low rates of providing contributing factors suggest a need for standardization and improvement of safety event reporting.

Clinical pathways and diagnostic reasoning: A qualitative study of pediatric residents' and hospitalists' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways are evidence-based guidelines adapted to local settings. They have been shown to improve patient outcomes and reduce resource utilization. However, it is unknown how physicians integrate clinical pathways into their clinical reasoning. METHODS: We conducted a single-center qualitative study involving one-on-one semi-structured interviews of pediatric residents and pediatric hospitalist attendings between August 2021 and March 2022. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. We utilized a qualitative descriptive framework to code data and identify themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 pediatric residents and 12 pediatric hospitalists. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts revealed four themes related to physician utilization of and experience with clinical pathways: (1) utility as a tool, (2) means of standardizing care, (3) reflection of institutional culture, and (4) element of the dynamic relationship with the clinician diagnostic process. These themes were generally common to both residents and attending physicians; however, some differences existed and are noted when they occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical pathways are part of many clinicians' diagnostic processes. Pathways can standardize care, influence the diagnostic process, and express local institutional culture. Further research is required to ascertain the optimal clinical pathway design to augment and not inhibit the clinician's diagnostic process.

Resident Communication With Patients and Families Preferring Languages Other Than English.

OBJECTIVES: Patients and families preferring languages other than English (LOE) often experience inequitable communication with their health care providers, including the underutilization of professional interpretation. This study had 2 aims: to characterize resident-perceived communication with families preferring LOE and to evaluate the impact of language preference on frequency of resident interactions with hospitalized patients and families. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study at a quaternary care children's hospital. We developed a questionnaire for residents regarding their interactions with patients preferring LOE. We concurrently developed a communication tracking tool to measure the frequency of resident communication events with hospitalized patients. Data were analyzed with logistic and Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Questionnaire results demonstrated a high level of resident comfort with interpretation, though more than 30% of residents reported "sometimes" or "usually" communicating with families preferring LOE without appropriate interpretation (response rate, 47%). The communication tracking tool was completed by 36 unique residents regarding 151 patients, with a 95% completion rate. Results demonstrated that patients and families preferring LOE were less likely to be present on rounds compared with their counterparts preferring English (adjusted odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.39). Similarly, patients and families preferring LOE were less likely to receive a resident update after rounds (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.62) and received fewer resident updates overall (incidence rate ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30-0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients and families preferring LOE experience significant communication-related inequities. Ongoing efforts are needed to promote equitable communication with this population and should consider the unique role of residents.

Opportunities for Diagnostic Improvement Among Pediatric Hospital Readmissions.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic errors, termed "missed opportunities for improving diagnosis" (MOIDs), are known sources of harm in children but have not been well characterized in pediatric hospital medicine. Our objectives were to systematically identify and describe MOIDs among general pediatric patients who experienced hospital readmission, outline improvement opportunities, and explore factors associated with increased risk of MOID. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study included unplanned readmissions within 15 days of discharge from a freestanding children's hospital (October 2018-September 2020). Health records from index admissions and readmissions were independently reviewed and discussed by practicing inpatient physicians to identify MOIDs using an established instrument, SaferDx. MOIDs were evaluated using a diagnostic-specific tool to identify improvement opportunities within the diagnostic process. RESULTS: MOIDs were identified in 22 (6.3%) of 348 readmissions. Opportunities for improvement included: delay in considering the correct diagnosis (n = 11, 50%) and failure to order needed test(s) (n = 10, 45%). Patients with MOIDs were older (median age: 3.8 [interquartile range 1.5-11.2] vs 1.0 [0.3-4.9] years) than patients without MOIDs but similar in sex, primary language, race, ethnicity, and insurance type. We did not identify conditions associated with higher risk of MOID. Lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 26% of admission diagnoses but only 1 (4.5%) case of MOID. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized review of pediatric readmissions identified MOIDs and opportunities for improvement within the diagnostic process, particularly in clinician decision-making. We identified conditions with low incidence of MOID. Further work is needed to better understand pediatric populations at highest risk for MOID.

Types of diagnostic errors reported by paediatric emergency providers in a global paediatric emergency care research network.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors, reframed as missed opportunities for improving diagnosis (MOIDs), are poorly understood in the paediatric emergency department (ED) setting. We investigated the clinical experience, harm and contributing factors related to MOIDs reported by physicians working in paediatric EDs. METHODS: We developed a web-based survey in which physicians participating in the international Paediatric Emergency Research Network representing five out of six WHO regions, described examples of MOIDs involving their own or a colleague's patients. Respondents provided case summaries and answered questions regarding harm and factors contributing to the event. RESULTS: Of 1594 physicians surveyed, 412 (25.8%) responded (mean age=43 years (SD=9.2), 42.0% female, mean years in practice=12 (SD=9.0)). Patient presentations involving MOIDs had common undifferentiated symptoms at initial presentation, including abdominal pain (21.1%), fever (17.2%) and vomiting (16.5%). Patients were discharged from the ED with commonly reported diagnoses, including acute gastroenteritis (16.7%), viral syndrome (10.2%) and constipation (7.0%). Most reported MOIDs (65%) were detected on ED return visits (46% within 24 hours and 76% within 72 hours). The most common reported MOID was appendicitis (11.4%), followed by brain tumour (4.4%), meningitis (4.4%) and non-accidental trauma (4.1%). More than half (59.1%) of the reported MOIDs involved the patient/parent-provider encounter (eg, misinterpreted/ignored history or an incomplete/inadequate physical examination). Types of MOIDs and contributing factors did not differ significantly between countries. More than half of patients had either moderate (48.7%) or major (10%) harm due to the MOID. CONCLUSIONS: An international cohort of paediatric ED physicians reported several MOIDs, often in children who presented to the ED with common undifferentiated symptoms. Many of these were related to patient/parent-provider interaction factors such as suboptimal history and physical examination. Physicians' personal experiences offer an underexplored source for investigating and mitigating diagnostic errors in the paediatric ED.

Research Priorities for Pediatric Emergency Care to Address Disparities by Race, Ethnicity, and Language.

Importance: Health care disparities are well-documented among children based on race, ethnicity, and language for care. An agenda that outlines research priorities for disparities in pediatric emergency care (PEC) is lacking. Objective: To investigate research priorities for disparities in PEC among medical personnel, researchers, and health care-affiliated community organizations. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, a modified Delphi approach was used to investigate research priorities for disparities in PEC. An initial list of research priorities was developed by a group of experienced PEC investigators in 2021. Partners iteratively assessed the list through 2 rounds of electronic surveys using Likert-type responses in late 2021 and early 2022. Priorities were defined as achieving consensus if they received a score of highest priority or priority by at least 60% of respondents. Asynchronous engagement of participants via online web-conferencing platforms and email correspondence with electronic survey administration was used. Partners were individuals and groups involved in PEC. Participants represented interest groups, research and medical personnel organizations, health care partners, and laypersons with roles in community and family hospital advisory councils. Participants were largely from the US, with input from international PEC research networks. Outcome: Consensus agenda of research priorities to identify and address health care disparities in PEC. Results: PEC investigators generated an initial list of 27 potential priorities. Surveys were completed by 38 of 47 partners (80.6%) and 30 of 38 partners (81.1%) in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. Among 30 respondents who completed both rounds, there were 7 family or community partners and 23 medical or research partners, including 4 international PEC research networks. A total of 12 research priorities achieved the predetermined consensus threshold: (1) systematic efforts to reduce disparities; (2) race, ethnicity, and language data collection and reporting; (3) recognizing and mitigating clinician implicit bias; (4) mental health disparities; (5) social determinants of health; (6) language and literacy; (7) acute pain-management disparities; (8) quality of care equity metrics; (9) shared decision-making; (10) patient experience; (11) triage and acuity score assignment; and (12) inclusive research participation. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest a research priority agenda that may be used as a guide for investigators, research networks, organizations, and funding agencies to engage in and support high-priority disparities research topics in PEC.

Applying a diagnostic excellence framework to assess opportunities to improve recognition of child physical abuse.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic excellence is an important domain of healthcare quality. Delays in diagnosis have been described in 20-30% of children with abusive injuries. Despite the well characterized epidemiology, improvement strategies remain elusive. We sought to assess the applicability of diagnostic improvement instruments to cases of non-accidental trauma and to identify potential opportunities for system improvement in child physical abuse diagnosis. METHODS: We purposefully sampled 10 cases identified as having potential for system level interventions and in which the child had prior outpatient encounters to review. Experts in pediatrics, child abuse, and diagnostic improvement independently reviewed each case and completed SaferDx, a validated instrument used to evaluate the diagnostic process. Cases were subsequently discussed to map potential opportunities for improving the diagnostic process to the DEER Taxonomy, which classifies opportunities by type and phase of the diagnostic process. RESULTS: The most frequent improvement opportunities identified by the SaferDx were in recognition of potential alarm symptoms and in expanding differential diagnosis (5 of 10 cases). The most frequent DEER taxonomy process opportunities were in history taking (8 of 10) and hypothesis generation (7 of 10). Discussion elicited additional opportunities in reconsideration of provisional diagnoses, understanding biopsychosocial risk, and addressing information scatter within the electronic health record (EHR). CONCLUSIONS: Applying a diagnostic excellence framework facilitated identification of systems opportunities to improve recognition of child abuse including integration of EHR information to support recognition of alarm symptoms, collaboration to support vulnerable families, and communication about diagnostic reasoning.

Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Debriefing Process for Pediatric Ward Deterioration Events.

OBJECTIVES: Event debriefing has established benefit, but its adoption is poorly characterized among pediatric ward providers. To improve patient safety, our hospital restructured its debriefing process for ward deterioration events culminating in ICU transfer. The aim of this study was to describe this process' implementation. METHODS: In the restructured process, multidisciplinary ward providers are expected to debrief all ICU transfers. We conducted a multimethod analysis using facilitative guides completed by debriefing participants. Monthly debriefing completion served as an adoption metric. RESULTS: Between March 2019 and February 2020, providers across 9 wards performed debriefing for 134 of 312 PICU transfers (43%). Bedside nurses participated most frequently (117 debriefings [87%]). There was no significant difference in debriefing by unit, acuity, season, or nurse staffing. Compared with units fully staffed by rotational frontline clinicians (FLCs; eg, resident physicians), units with dedicated FLCs whose responsibilities are primarily limited to that unit (eg, oncology hospitalists) completed significantly more monthly debriefings (average [SD] 57% [30%] vs 33% [28%] of PICU transfers; P = .004). FLC participation was also higher on these units (50% of debriefings [37%] vs 24% [37%]; P = .014). Through qualitative analysis, we identified distinct debriefing themes, with teaming activities such as communication cited most often. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multidisciplinary debriefing process for ward deterioration events culminating in ICU transfer was associated with differential adoption across providers and FLC staffing models but not acuity or nurse staffing. Teaming activities were a debriefing priority. Future study will assess patient safety outcomes.

An Operational Framework to Study Diagnostic Errors in Emergency Departments: Findings From A Consensus Panel.

OBJECTIVE: To create an operational definition and framework to study diagnostic error in the emergency department setting. METHODS: We convened a 17-member multidisciplinary panel with expertise in general and pediatric emergency medicine, nursing, patient safety, informatics, cognitive psychology, social sciences, human factors, and risk management and a patient/caregiver advocate. We used a modified nominal group technique to develop a shared understanding to operationally define diagnostic errors in emergency care and modify the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's conceptual process framework to this setting. RESULTS: The expert panel defined diagnostic errors as "a divergence from evidence-based processes that increases the risk of poor outcomes despite the availability of sufficient information to provide a timely and accurate explanation of the patient's health problem(s)." Diagnostic processes include tasks related to (a) acuity recognition, information and synthesis, evaluation coordination, and (b) communication with patients/caregivers and other diagnostic team members. The expert panel also modified the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's diagnostic process framework to incorporate influence of mode of arrival, triage level, and interventions during emergency care and underscored the importance of outcome feedback to emergency department providers to promote learning and improvement related to diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed operational definition and modified diagnostic process framework can potentially inform the development of measurement tools and strategies to study the epidemiology and interventions to improve emergency care diagnosis.

Identifying trigger concepts to screen emergency department visits for diagnostic errors.

OBJECTIVES: The diagnostic process is a vital component of safe and effective emergency department (ED) care. There are no standardized methods for identifying or reliably monitoring diagnostic errors in the ED, impeding efforts to enhance diagnostic safety. We sought to identify trigger concepts to screen ED records for diagnostic errors and describe how they can be used as a measurement strategy to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm. METHODS: We conducted a literature review and surveyed ED directors to compile a list of potential electronic health record (EHR) trigger (e-triggers) and non-EHR based concepts. We convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to build consensus on trigger concepts to identify and reduce preventable diagnostic harm in the ED. RESULTS: Six e-trigger and five non-EHR based concepts were selected by the expert panel. E-trigger concepts included: unscheduled ED return to ED resulting in hospital admission, death following ED visit, care escalation, high-risk conditions based on symptom-disease dyads, return visits with new diagnostic/therapeutic interventions, and change of treating service after admission. Non-EHR based signals included: cases from mortality/morbidity conferences, risk management/safety office referrals, ED medical director case referrals, patient complaints, and radiology/laboratory misreads and callbacks. The panel suggested further refinements to aid future research in defining diagnostic error epidemiology in ED settings. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of e-trigger concepts and non-EHR based signals that could be developed further to screen ED visits for diagnostic safety events. With additional evaluation, trigger-based methods can be used as tools to monitor and improve ED diagnostic performance.

A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of dexamethasone for bronchiolitis.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiolitis, the most common infection of the lower respiratory tract in infants, is a leading cause of hospitalization in childhood. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat bronchiolitis, but evidence of their effectiveness is limited. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial comparing a single dose of oral dexamethasone (1 mg per kilogram of body weight) with placebo in 600 children (age range, 2 to 12 months) with a first episode of wheezing diagnosed in the emergency department as moderate-to-severe bronchiolitis (defined by a Respiratory Distress Assessment Instrument score > or =6). We enrolled patients at 20 emergency departments during the months of November through April over a 3-year period. The primary outcome was hospital admission after 4 hours of emergency department observation. The secondary outcome was the Respiratory Assessment Change Score (RACS). We also evaluated later outcomes: length of hospital stay, later medical visits or admissions, and adverse events. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The admission rate was 39.7% for children assigned to dexamethasone, as compared with 41.0% for those assigned to placebo (absolute difference, -1.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.2 to 6.5). Both groups had respiratory improvement during observation; the mean 4-hour RACS was -5.3 for dexamethasone, as compared with -4.8 for placebo (absolute difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.3 to 0.3). Multivariate adjustment did not significantly alter the results, nor were differences detected in later outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In infants with acute moderate-to-severe bronchiolitis who were treated in the emergency department, a single dose of 1 mg of oral dexamethasone per kilogram did not significantly alter the rate of hospital admission, the respiratory status after 4 hours of observation, or later outcomes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00119002 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Improving Disposition Decision-Making for Pediatric Diabetic Ketoacidosis: A Quality Improvement Study.

INTRODUCTION: In many centers, children with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) receive care either in an endocrinology ward or a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). We conducted a quality improvement (QI) initiative to reduce potentially avoidable PICU admissions of children with DKA without increasing endocrinology ward-to-PICU transfers. METHODS: A survey of providers demonstrated opportunities to increase awareness of institutional criteria for PICU admissions of children with DKA. We created an electronic health record (EHR) dot-phrase, prepopulated with these criteria, and placed a note in the EHR for all patients with DKA as a reference for all providers. An EHR-based data report was created to monitor the disposition of DKA patients and the use of the dot-phrase (process measure). The primary outcome measure was the potentially avoidable PICU admissions for patients with DKA. Endocrinology ward-to-PICU transfers were tracked as a balancing measure to ensure safe disposition. RESULTS: After the implementation of the dot-phrase, use was variable, but averaged 33.4% over 1 year. The percentage of DKA admissions classified as potentially avoidable PICU stays decreased from 4.1% to 0.5%, with a concurrent decrease in the total percentage of PICU admissions for DKA from 19.1% to 8.4%. The percentage of endocrinology ward-to-PICU transfers also declined from 0.8% to 0%. CONCLUSIONS: A novel EHR-based intervention increasing awareness and documentation of established pediatric DKA management guidelines can be used to safely reduce PICU admissions for DKA without increasing the rate of endocrinology ward-to-intensive care unit transfers.

Demonstrating the value of postgraduate fellowships for physicians in quality improvement and patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Academic fellowships in quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) have emerged as one strategy to fill a need for physicians who possess this expertise. The authors aimed to characterise the impact of two such programmes on the graduates and their value to the institutions in which they are housed. METHODS: In 2018, a qualitative study of two US QIPS postgraduate fellowship programmes was conducted. Graduates' demographics and titles were collected from programme files,while perspectives of the graduates and their institutional mentors were collected through individual interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-eight out of 31 graduates (90%) and 16 out of 17 (94%) mentors participated in the study across both institutions. At a median of 3 years (IQR 2-4) postgraduation, QIPS fellowship programme graduates' effort distribution was: 50% clinical care (IQR 30-61.8), 48% QIPS administration (IQR 20-60), 28% QIPS research (IQR 17.5-50) and 15% education (7.1-30.4). 68% of graduates were hired in the health system where they trained. Graduates described learning the requisite hard and soft skills to succeed in QIPS roles. Mentors described the impact of the programme on patient outcomes and increasing the acceptability of the field within academic medicine culture. CONCLUSION: Graduates from two QIPS fellowship programmes and their mentors perceive programmatic benefits related to individual career goal attainment and institutional impact. The results and conceptual framework presented here may be useful to other academic medical centres seeking to develop fellowships for advanced physician training programmes in QIPS.