Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Pediatrics ; 145(1)2020 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31810996

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: In 2014, the American Academy of Pediatrics published bronchiolitis guidelines recommending against the use of bronchodilators. For the winter of 2015 to 2016, we aimed to reduce the proportion of emergency department patients with bronchiolitis receiving albuterol from 43% (previous winter rate) to <35% and from 18% (previous winter rate) to <10% in the inpatient setting. METHODS: A team identified key drivers of albuterol use and potential interventions. We implemented changes to our pathway and the associated order set recommending against routine albuterol use and designed education to accompany the pathway changes. We monitored albuterol use through weekly automated data extraction and reported results back to clinicians. We measured admission rate, length of stay, and revisit rate as balancing measures for the intervention. RESULTS: The study period included 3834 emergency department visits and 1119 inpatient hospitalizations. In the emergency department, albuterol use in children with bronchiolitis declined from 43% to 20% and was <3 SD control limits established in the previous year, meeting statistical thresholds for special cause variation. Inpatient albuterol use decreased from 18% to 11% of patients, also achieving special cause variation and approaching our goal. The changes in both departments were sustained through the entire bronchiolitis season, and admission rate, length of stay, and revisit rates remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Using a multidisciplinary group that redesigned a clinical pathway and order sets for bronchiolitis, we substantially reduced albuterol use at a large children's hospital without impacting other outcome measures.


Asunto(s)
Albuterol/uso terapéutico , Bronquiolitis/tratamiento farmacológico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Internación , Admisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Vías Clínicas , Femenino , Necesidades y Demandas de Servicios de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Hospitales Pediátricos , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Uso Excesivo de los Servicios de Salud/prevención & control , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Estaciones del Año
2.
Respir Care ; 63(7): 894-899, 2018 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29535260

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use has greatly increased in recent years. In non-neonatal pediatric patients, there are limited data available to guide HFNC use, and clinical practice may vary significantly. The goal of this study was to evaluate current HFNC practice by surveying practicing pediatric respiratory therapists. METHODS: A survey instrument was posted on the American Association for Respiratory Care's AARConnect online social media platform in March 2017. Paper versions of the survey were also distributed at the annual Children Hospitals Association meeting. RESULTS: There were 63 responses, of which 98% used HFNC. HFNC was defined as any heated gas delivered by nasal cannula by 49% of respondents, whereas 21% defined HFNC as heated gas delivered via nasal cannula at flow greater than or equal to the patient's inspiratory demand, and 16% defined HFNC as any gas delivered via nasal cannula above predefined thresholds. Initial flow was set per provider orders by 34% of respondents, per respiratory therapist-driven protocol by 28%, per patient weight by 15%, per patient age by 15%; 5% of respondents used other methods. Noninvasive ventilation or CPAP was used by 88% of respondents as the next step for patients who failed HFNC, with 7% opting for intubation and 5% using other interventions. Aerosol therapy was delivered by 75% of respondents during HFNC, with 77% of these respondents delivering aerosol via vibrating mesh nebulizer. During aerosol therapy, 13% of respondents decreased HFNC flow, while 23% removed patients from HFNC. CONCLUSION: There was no consensus on the definition of HFNC, how to set initial flow, or how to make adjustments. Aerosols were delivered by 75% of respondents, predominantly via a vibrating mesh nebulizer placed on the dry side of the humidifier. The definition of HFNC, how to set flow, and aerosolized medication delivery are areas in which more research is needed.


Asunto(s)
Cánula/estadística & datos numéricos , Pediatría/estadística & datos numéricos , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Aerosoles/uso terapéutico , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Humidificadores , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Nebulizadores y Vaporizadores
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA