RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Most children who need emergency care visit general emergency departments and urgent care centres; the weighted pediatric readiness score (WPRS) is currently used to evaluate emergency departments' readiness for pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to determine whether a higher WPRS was associated with decreased mortality and improved health care outcomes and utilization. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of cohort and cross-sectional studies on emergency departments that care for children (age ≤ 21 yr). We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid) and Scopus from inception until July 29, 2022. Articles identified were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were health care outcomes and utilization. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess for quality and bias of the included studies. The I 2 statistic was calculated to quantify study heterogeneity. RESULTS: We identified 1789 articles. Eight articles were included in the final analysis. Three studies showed an inverse association between highest WPRS quartile and pediatric mortality (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 0.78; I 2 = 89%, low certainty of evidence) in random-effects meta-analysis. Likewise, 1 study not included in the meta-analysis also reported an inverse association with a 1-point increase in WPRS (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98). One study reported that the highest WPRS quartile was associated with shorter length of stay in hospital (ß -0.36 days, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.10). Three studies concluded that the highest WPRS quartile was associated with fewer interfacility transfers. The certainty of evidence is low for mortality and moderate for the studied health care outcomes and utilization. INTERPRETATION: The data suggest a potential inverse association between the WPRS of emergency departments and mortality risk in children. More studies are needed to refute or confirm these findings. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42020191149.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review of literature on the duration of patients' opening statements in clinical encounters, with or without an interruption. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify articles based on pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted study details and outcomes related to the length of patients' opening statements. A second reviewer verified this data. RESULTS: We included 14 studies from 1185 citations reviewed. Encounters were in primary care clinics, specialty clinics, and hospitals. Across six studies, the mean time to interruption was 18.2 s. The mean length of uninterrupted opening statements was 45.9 s across nine studies. CONCLUSION: Clinicians interrupting their patients' opening statements, compared to not interrupting, takes away time from the patient to fully present their concerns. Research has not focused on the nature of clinician interruptions. For instance, an interruption encouraging expansion or more detail facilitates understanding. Therefore, the impact these interruptions have on the clinical encounter remains unknown. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interrupting the average patient does not save time, so clinicians may benefit from allowing their patients to complete their opening statements.