Association between pediatric asthma care quality and morbidity and English language proficiency in Ohio.

OBJECTIVE: Limited English proficiency can be a barrier to asthma care and is associated with poor outcomes. This study examines whether pediatric patients in Ohio with limited English proficiency experience lower asthma care quality or higher morbidity. METHODS: We used electronic health records for asthma patients aged 2-17 years from a regional, urban, children's hospital in Ohio during 2011-2015. Community-level demographics were included from U.S. Census data. By using chi-square and t-tests, patients with limited English proficiency and bilingual English-speaking patients were compared with English-only patients. Five asthma outcomes-two quality and three morbidity measures-were modeled using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The study included 15 352 (84%) English-only patients, 1744 (10%) patients with limited English proficiency, and 1147 (6%) bilingual patients. Pulmonary function testing (quality measure) and multiple exacerbation visits (morbidity measure) did not differ by language group. Compared with English-only patients, bilingual patients had higher odds of ever having an exacerbation visit (morbidity measure) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.6) but lower odds of admission to intensive care (morbidity measure) (aOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7), while patients with limited English proficiency did not differ on either factor. Recommended follow-up after exacerbation (quality measure) was higher for limited English proficiency (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3) and bilingual (aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1), compared with English-only patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this urban, pediatric population with reliable interpreter services, limited English proficiency was not associated with worse asthma care quality or morbidity.

Automating a Manual Sepsis Screening Tool in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the method of integrating a manual pediatric emergency department sepsis screening process into the electronic health record that leverages existing clinical documentation and keeps providers in their current, routine clinical workflows. METHODS: Criteria in the manual pediatric emergency department sepsis screening tool were mapped to standard documentation routinely entered in the electronic health record. Data elements were extracted and scored from the medical history, medication record, vital signs, and physical assessments. Scores that met a predefined sepsis risk threshold triggered interruptive system alerts which notified emergency department staff to perform sepsis huddles and consider appropriate interventions. Statistical comparison of the new electronic tool to the manual process was completed by a two-tail paired t-test. RESULTS: The performance of the pediatric electronic sepsis screening tool was evaluated by comparing flowsheet row documentation of the manual, sepsis alert process against the interruptive system alert instance of the electronic sepsis screening tool. In an 8-week testing period, the automated pediatric electronic sepsis screening tool identified 100% of patients flagged by the manual process (n = 29), on average, 68 minutes earlier. CONCLUSION: Integrating a manual sepsis screening tool into the electronic health record automated identification of pediatric sepsis screening in a busy emergency department. The electronic sepsis screening tool is as accurate as a manual process and would alert bedside clinicians significantly earlier in the emergency department course. Deployment of this electronic tool has the capability to improve timely sepsis detection and management of patients at risk for sepsis without requiring additional documentation by providers.