Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis Testing Appropriateness in Pediatric Acute Care Settings.

OBJECTIVE: Acute pharyngitis is one of the most common causes of ambulatory clinic visits; however, group A Streptococcus accounts for less than a third. National guidelines recommend against streptococcal testing in patients with viral features. This study aims to assess the rate of inappropriate streptococcal rapid antigen detection tests (RADT)s in children evaluated in urgent care clinics (UCC)s and emergency department (ED)s at a children's hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of 10% of children 3 years or older with RADTs ordered between April and September 2018 at EDs and UCCs. The test was determined to be inappropriate if the patient had no sore throat and/or had 2 or more viral symptoms: rhinorrhea/congestion, cough, diarrhea, hoarseness, conjunctivitis, or viral exanthem. RESULTS: Over the study period, 7678 RADTs were performed, of which 7024 (91.2%) were in children 3 years or older. We evaluated 708 charts and found 44% of RADTs were inappropriate. The predicted probability of inappropriate RADT was highest among patients with a triaged reason for visit for respiratory complaints (70.5%), viral upper respiratory tract infection (69.7%), and rash (61.3%). Of the inappropriate RADTs, 20.1% were positive, whereas 32.2% of the appropriate RADTs were positive. CONCLUSION: Quality improvement initiatives are needed to decrease the rate of inappropriate RADTs in pediatric UCC and ED settings.

Anaphylaxis-a 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis.

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need for repeated doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. Antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids are not reliable interventions to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis, although evidence supports a role for antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid premedication in specific chemotherapy protocols and rush aeroallergen immunotherapy. Evidence is lacking to support the role of antihistamines and/or glucocorticoid routine premedication in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast media anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is the first-line pharmacotherapy for uniphasic and/or biphasic anaphylaxis. After diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, all patients should be kept under observation until symptoms have fully resolved. All patients with anaphylaxis should receive education on anaphylaxis and risk of recurrence, trigger avoidance, self-injectable epinephrine education, referral to an allergist, and be educated about thresholds for further care.

Evidence-based practice models and frameworks in the healthcare setting: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review current evidence-based practice (EBP) models and frameworks. Specifically, how EBP models and frameworks used in healthcare settings align with the original model of (1) asking the question, (2) acquiring the best evidence, (3) appraising the evidence, (4) applying the findings to clinical practice and (5) evaluating the outcomes of change, along with patient values and preferences and clinical skills. DESIGN: A Scoping review. INCLUDED SOURCES AND ARTICLES: Published articles were identified through searches within electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) from January 1990 to April 2022. The English language EBP models and frameworks included in the review all included the five main steps of EBP. Excluded were models and frameworks focused on one domain or strategy (eg, frameworks focused on applying findings). RESULTS: Of the 20 097 articles found by our search, 19 models and frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The results showed a diverse collection of models and frameworks. Many models and frameworks were well developed and widely used, with supporting validation and updates. Some models and frameworks provided many tools and contextual instruction, while others provided only general process instruction. The models and frameworks reviewed demonstrated that the user must possess EBP expertise and knowledge for the step of assessing evidence. The models and frameworks varied greatly in the level of instruction to assess the evidence. Only seven models and frameworks integrated patient values and preferences into their processes. CONCLUSION: Many EBP models and frameworks currently exist that provide diverse instructions on the best way to use EBP. However, the inclusion of patient values and preferences needs to be better integrated into EBP models and frameworks. Also, the issues of EBP expertise and knowledge to assess evidence must be considered when choosing a model or framework.

Effect of Low Lactose Formula on the Short-Term Outcomes of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

The use of low lactose formula (LLF) in term and near-term infants in infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) has been increasing recently. However, the clinical evidence of such use is limited. Our aim in this paper was to systematically review the current literature about the use of LLF in infants with NAS. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles published between 2015 and 2020. Only randomized controlled trials, prospective, and retrospective studies. The risk of bias was assessed by using published tools appropriate for the study type. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Forty-one titles and/or abstracts were screened independently by 2 reviewers (MA and GA). After an indepth review, 4 studies answered the study question (1 randomized controlled trial (RCT), 2 retrospective studies, and 1 quality improvement study). A meta-analysis could not be completed due to the study type difference and how the outcomes were reported. The studies found no benefit to feeding LLF to infants with NAS regarding short-term outcomes (length of stay, duration, and need for pharmacological therapy and growth). Certainty in the evidence is low. In conclusion we found no beneficial effects regarding the need for pharmacological therapy, duration of pharmacological treatment, length of hospital stay, and growth of using LLF compared to the standard formula in infants with NAS.