Understanding case mix across three paediatric services: could integration of primary and secondary general paediatrics alter walk-in emergency attendances?

OBJECTIVE: To understand the case mix of three different paediatric services, reasons for using an acute paediatric service in a region of developing integrated care and where acute attendances could alternatively have been managed. METHODS: Mixed methods service evaluation, including retrospective review of referrals to general paediatric outpatients (n=534) and a virtual integrated service (email advice line) (n=474), as well as a prospective survey of paediatric ambulatory unit (PAU) attendees (n=95) and review by a paediatric consultant/registrar to decide where these cases could alternatively have been managed. RESULTS: The case mix of outpatient referrals and the email advice line was similar, but the case mix for PAU was more acute. The most common parental reasons for attending PAU were referral by a community health professional (27.2%), not being able to get a general practitioner (GP) appointment when desired (21.7%), wanting to avoid accident and emergency (17.4%) and wanting specialist paediatric input (14.1%). More than half of PAU presentations were deemed most appropriate for community management by a GP or midwife. The proportion of cases suitable for community management varied by the reason for attendance, with it highestl for parents reporting not being able to get a GP appointment (85%), and lowest for those referred by community health professionals (29%). CONCLUSIONS: One in two attendances to acute paediatric services could have been managed in the community. Integration of paediatric services could help address parental reasons for attending acute services, as well as facilitating the community management of chronic conditions.

Diagnostic omission errors in acute paediatric practice: impact of a reminder system on decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error is a significant problem in specialities characterised by diagnostic uncertainty such as primary care, emergency medicine and paediatrics. Despite wide-spread availability, computerised aids have not been shown to significantly improve diagnostic decision-making in a real world environment, mainly due to the need for prolonged system consultation. In this study performed in the clinical environment, we used a Web-based diagnostic reminder system that provided rapid advice with free text data entry to examine its impact on clinicians' decisions in an acute paediatric setting during assessments characterised by diagnostic uncertainty. METHODS: Junior doctors working over a 5-month period at four paediatric ambulatory units consulted the Web-based diagnostic aid when they felt the need for diagnostic assistance. Subjects recorded their clinical decisions for patients (differential diagnosis, test-ordering and treatment) before and after system consultation. An expert panel of four paediatric consultants independently suggested clinically significant decisions indicating an appropriate and 'safe' assessment. The primary outcome measure was change in the proportion of 'unsafe' workups by subjects during patient assessment. A more sensitive evaluation of impact was performed using specific validated quality scores. Adverse effects of consultation on decision-making, as well as the additional time spent on system use were examined. RESULTS: Subjects attempted to access the diagnostic aid on 595 occasions during the study period (8.6% of all medical assessments); subjects examined diagnostic advice only in 177 episodes (30%). Senior House Officers at hospitals with greater number of available computer workstations in the clinical area were most likely to consult the system, especially out of working hours. Diagnostic workups construed as 'unsafe' occurred in 47/104 cases (45.2%); this reduced to 32.7% following system consultation (McNemar test, p < 0.001). Subjects' mean 'unsafe' workups per case decreased from 0.49 to 0.32 (p < 0.001). System advice prompted the clinician to consider the 'correct' diagnosis (established at discharge) during initial assessment in 3/104 patients. Median usage time was 1 min 38 sec (IQR 50 sec-3 min 21 sec). Despite a modest increase in the number of diagnostic possibilities entertained by the clinician, no adverse effects were demonstrable on patient management following system use. Numerous technical barriers prevented subjects from accessing the diagnostic aid in the majority of eligible patients in whom they sought diagnostic assistance. CONCLUSION: We have shown that junior doctors used a Web-based diagnostic reminder system during acute paediatric assessments to significantly improve the quality of their diagnostic workup and reduce diagnostic omission errors. These benefits were achieved without any adverse effects on patient management following a quick consultation.

Assessment of the potential impact of a reminder system on the reduction of diagnostic errors: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Computerized decision support systems (DSS) have mainly focused on improving clinicians' diagnostic accuracy in unusual and challenging cases. However, since diagnostic omission errors may predominantly result from incomplete workup in routine clinical practice, the provision of appropriate patient- and context-specific reminders may result in greater impact on patient safety. In this experimental study, a mix of easy and difficult simulated cases were used to assess the impact of a novel diagnostic reminder system (ISABEL) on the quality of clinical decisions made by various grades of clinicians during acute assessment. METHODS: Subjects of different grades (consultants, registrars, senior house officers and medical students), assessed a balanced set of 24 simulated cases on a trial website. Subjects recorded their clinical decisions for the cases (differential diagnosis, test-ordering and treatment), before and after system consultation. A panel of two pediatric consultants independently provided gold standard responses for each case, against which subjects' quality of decisions was measured. The primary outcome measure was change in the count of diagnostic errors of omission (DEO). A more sensitive assessment of the system's impact was achieved using specific quality scores; additional consultation time resulting from DSS use was also calculated. RESULTS: 76 subjects (18 consultants, 24 registrars, 19 senior house officers and 15 students) completed a total of 751 case episodes. The mean count of DEO fell from 5.5 to 5.0 across all subjects (repeated measures ANOVA, p < 0.001); no significant interaction was seen with subject grade. Mean diagnostic quality score increased after system consultation (0.044; 95% confidence interval 0.032, 0.054). ISABEL reminded subjects to consider at least one clinically important diagnosis in 1 in 8 case episodes, and prompted them to order an important test in 1 in 10 case episodes. Median extra time taken for DSS consultation was 1 min (IQR: 30 sec to 2 min). CONCLUSION: The provision of patient- and context-specific reminders has the potential to reduce diagnostic omissions across all subject grades for a range of cases. This study suggests a promising role for the use of future reminder-based DSS in the reduction of diagnostic error.

Measuring the impact of diagnostic decision support on the quality of clinical decision making: development of a reliable and valid composite score.

OBJECTIVE: Few previous studies evaluating the benefits of diagnostic decision support systems have simultaneously measured changes in diagnostic quality and clinical management prompted by use of the system. This report describes a reliable and valid scoring technique to measure the quality of clinical decision plans in an acute medical setting, where diagnostic decision support tools might prove most useful. DESIGN: Sets of differential diagnoses and clinical management plans generated by 71 clinicians for six simulated cases, before and after decision support from a Web-based pediatric differential diagnostic tool (ISABEL), were used. MEASUREMENTS: A composite quality score was calculated separately for each diagnostic and management plan by considering the appropriateness value of each component diagnostic or management suggestion, a weighted sum of individual suggestion ratings, relevance of the entire plan, and its comprehensiveness. The reliability and validity (face, concurrent, construct, and content) of these two final scores were examined. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-two diagnostic and 350 management suggestions were included in the interrater reliability analysis. There was good agreement between raters (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.79 for diagnoses, and 0.72 for management). No counterintuitive scores were demonstrated on visual inspection of the sets. Content validity was verified by a consultation process with pediatricians. Both scores discriminated adequately between the plans of consultants and medical students and correlated well with clinicians' subjective opinions of overall plan quality (Spearman rho 0.65, p < 0.01). The diagnostic and management scores for each episode showed moderate correlation (r = 0.51). CONCLUSION: The scores described can be used as key outcome measures in a larger study to fully assess the value of diagnostic decision aids, such as the ISABEL system.

Chalk and cheese: symptomatic hypocalcaemia during paediatric anti-tuberculous therapy.

Standard anti-tuberculosis therapy may disrupt normal vitamin D metabolism and consequently calcium homeostasis, but this is previously unreported in paediatric patients. We describe two children developed symptomatic hypocalcaemia secondary to hypovitaminosis D, which had been precipitated by rifampicin and isoniazid. The complex relationship between tuberculosis, anti-tuberculosis therapy, vitamin D metabolism and calcium, together with the clinical implications, are discussed.