Pediatric Abdominal Pain in Children Presenting to the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Undifferentiated abdominal pain is a common pediatric presentation to the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of clinically significant abdominal pathology (CSAP) including appendicitis, patterns of imaging and pathology tests, and management and outcomes of children with abdominal pain in ED. METHODS: A prospective multicenter observational cohort pilot study of children under the age of 16 years presenting to 4 Australian EDs with abdominal pain was performed for a 1-month period at each site. The primary outcome was to describe the prevalence of CSAP and appendicitis. Age, sex, length of stay, surgery or interventional procedure, investigations, and analgesia use were recorded. RESULTS: There were 555 presentations with abdominal pain during the study period with a median age of 9 years (interquartile range, 6-12 years). Eighty-two patients (14.8%; 95% confidence interval, 11.8-17.7) had CSAP, of which 41 (7.4%, 5.2-9.6) had appendicitis. Three hundred forty-eight (62.7%, 58.7-66.7) were discharged directly from ED, and 207 (37.3%, 33.2-41.3) were admitted. Two hundred fifty-five (45.9%, 41.8-50.1) had pathology tests, and 173 (31.2%, 27.3-35.1) had imaging tests in ED. Of those contacted for telephone follow-up, 100 (50.5%, 43.5-57.5) of 198 reported ongoing pain after discharge, and 13.1% (8.4-17.8) had missed over a week of school due to abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CSAP and appendicitis in our study was 14.8% (11.8-17.7) and 7.4% (5.2-9.6), respectively. Fewer than half of patients received blood tests, and a third received imaging during their ED attendance. The presentation of abdominal pain conveys a significant health burden on families with time off school and ongoing symptoms of pain.

Accuracy of clinician gestalt in diagnosing appendicitis in children presenting to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal pain is a common paediatric presentation to the ED. Accurate diagnosis of acute appendicitis is challenging, with the best-performing clinical scoring systems having sensitivities between 72% and 100%. The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinician gestalt according to seniority in diagnosing paediatric acute appendicitis in ED. METHODS: This is a prospective multi-centre observational study of clinician's prediction of appendicitis in children under the age of 16 years presenting to four EDs with abdominal pain over a 1 month period at each site. Clinician-estimated likelihood of acute appendicitis was compared with the final diagnosis determined by histopathology or operative findings and supplemented by telephone follow up for those without an operation. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of clinician gestalt according to clinician seniority in diagnosing appendicitis. RESULTS: There were 381 children enrolled with completed clinician questionnaires, and 224 children had complete follow up or underwent appendicectomy. The median age was 9 years (interquartile range 6-12) and the incidence of appendicitis was 31/224 (13.8%, 95% confidence interval 9.3-18.4). The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of clinician gestalt were 0.84 (0.76-0.91), 81% (63-93%), 76% (69-82%), 35% (28-42%) and 96% (92-98%), respectively, giving an overall diagnostic accuracy of 76% (70-82%). AUC stratified by clinician seniority (junior, intermediate and senior) were 0.89 (0.80-0.98), 0.82 (0.69-0.95) and 0.76 (0.56-0.96), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of ED clinician gestalt in paediatric appendicitis is comparable to current clinical scoring systems irrespective of seniority.

Comparison of methods used to quantify general practice-type patients in the emergency department: A tertiary paediatric perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare methods for quantifying general practice-type (GP-type) patients in a paediatric ED to determine the robustness of current identification methods. METHODS: Data was sourced from the ED Information System for 5 years (2010-2014) from the tertiary paediatric hospital in Perth, Western Australia, Australia. A further detailed analysis of 2014 presentations established an independent sample for valid statistical comparison of the three methods used to identify GP-type patients: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, ACEM and the Diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 348 020 patients presented in 2010-2014, with the percentage of GP-type patients identified varying from 38% to 68% by the three methods. Fewer GP-type presentations occurred over each consecutive year and had significantly lower median medical consultation times and ED length of stay when compared with the total presentation sample. GP-type presentations were evenly spread across the days and times of the week, with ACEM demonstrating only fewer presentations during office hours (P = 0.02). In 2014 there was only overlap in 36.6% cases for all three methods - 6.9% exclusively flagged by ACEM, 22.7% by Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and 0.2% by the Diagnosis method. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that current models to quantify perceived GP-type presentations were inconsistent in paediatric patients. All methods flagged a high proportion of GP-type presentations, and although the reasons for these presentations are multifactorial and not easily explained by access to GP services alone, they do represent a significant workload in the paediatric ED.