Perspectives of Health Care Personnel on the Benefits of Bronchiolitis Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Many interventions in bronchiolitis are low-value or poorly studied. Inpatient bronchiolitis management is multidisciplinary, with varying degrees of registered nurse (RN) and respiratory therapist (RT) autonomy. Understanding the perceived benefit of interventions for frontline health care personnel may facilitate deimplementation efforts. Our objective was to examine perceptions surrounding the benefit of common inpatient bronchiolitis interventions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of inpatient pediatric RNs, RTs, and physicians/licensed practitioners (P/LPs) (eg, advanced-practice practitioners) from May to December of 2021 at 9 university-affiliated and 2 community hospitals. A clinical vignette preceded a series of inpatient bronchiolitis management questions. RESULTS: A total of 331 surveys were analyzed with a completion rate of 71.9%: 76.5% for RNs, 57.4% for RTs, and 71.2% for P/LPs. Approximately 54% of RNs and 45% of RTs compared with 2% of P/LPs believe albuterol would be "extremely or somewhat likely" to improve work of breathing (P < .001). Similarly, 52% of RNs, 32% of RTs, and 23% of P/LPs thought initiating or escalating oxygen in the absence of hypoxemia was likely to improve work of breathing (P < .001). Similar differences in perceived benefit were observed for steroids, nebulized hypertonic saline, and deep suctioning, but not superficial nasal suctioning. Hospital type (community versus university-affiliated) did not impact the magnitude of these differences. CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in the perceived benefit of several low-value or poorly studied bronchiolitis interventions among health care personnel, with RNs/RTs generally perceiving higher benefit. Deimplementation, educational, and quality improvement efforts should be designed with an interprofessional framework.

Frequency and Consequences of Routine Temperature Measurement at Well-Child Visits.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the (1) frequency and visit characteristics of routine temperature measurement and (2) rates of interventions by temperature measurement practice and the probability of incidental fever detection. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed well-child visits between 2014-2019. We performed multivariable regression to characterize visits associated with routine temperature measurement and conducted generalized estimating equations regression to determine adjusted rates of interventions (antibiotic prescription, and diagnostic testing) and vaccine deferral by temperature measurement and fever status, clustered by clinic and patient. Through dual independent chart review, fever (≥100.4°F) was categorized as probable, possible, or unlikely to be incidentally detected. RESULTS: Temperature measurement occurred at 155 527 of 274 351 (58.9%) well-child visits. Of 24 clinics, 16 measured temperature at >90% of visits ("routine measurement clinics") and 8 at <20% of visits ("occasional measurement clinics"). After adjusting for age, ethnicity, race, and insurance, antibiotic prescription was more common (adjusted odds ratio: 1.21; 95% CI 1.13-1.29), whereas diagnostic testing was less common (adjusted odds ratio: 0.76; 95% CI 0.71-0.82) at routine measurement clinics. Fever was detected at 270 of 155 527 (0.2%) routine measurement clinic visits, 47 (17.4%) of which were classified as probable incidental fever. Antibiotic prescription and diagnostic testing were more common at visits with probable incidental fever than without fever (7.4% vs 1.7%; 14.8% vs 1.2%; P < .001), and vaccines were deferred at 50% such visits. CONCLUSIONS: Temperature measurement occurs at more than one-half of well-child visits and is a clinic-driven practice. Given the impact on subsequent interventions and vaccine deferral, the harm-benefit profile of this practice warrants consideration.