A real-world evaluation of the effectiveness and Sufficiency of Current Emergency Department Preventative Strategies for Reducing Emergency Department revisits in a Canadian children's hospital: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite asthma guidelines' recommended emergency department preventative strategies (EDPS), repeat asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits remain frequent. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of children aged 1-17 years presenting with asthma to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) ED between September 1, 2014 - August 31, 2015. EDPS was defined as provision of education on trigger avoidance and medication technique plus documentation of an asthma action plan, a prescription for an inhaled controller medication or referral to a specialist. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receipt of EDPS. We further compared the odds of repeat presentation to the ED within the following year among children who had received EDPS versus those who had not. RESULTS: 1301 patients were included, and the mean age of those who received EDPS was 5.0 years (SD = 3.7). Those with a moderate (OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 2.49, 5.52) to severe (OR = 3.69, 95% CI: 2.50, 5.45) asthma presentation were most likely to receive EDPS. Receiving EDPS did not significantly reduce the adjusted odds of repeat ED visits, (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.18, p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with higher severity asthma presentations to the ED were more likely to receive EDPS, but this did not appear to significantly decrease the proportion with a repeat asthma ED visit. These findings suggest that receipt of EDPS in the ED may not be sufficient to prevent repeat asthma ED visits in all children.

Predictors of future acute asthma visits among children receiving guideline recommended emergency department discharge management.

BACKGROUND: Asthma emergency department (ED) visits remain frequent among children, prompting ongoing pursuit of preventative strategies. OBJECTIVE: We identified factors associated with future acute asthma ED visits among children who had already received guideline recommended discharge management following a prior asthma ED visit. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of children ages 1-17 years with a first asthma ED visit to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Canada between September 2014-August 2015. Children who received recommended discharge management including an inhaled corticosteroids prescription and/or an asthma action plan were included. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with a future acute asthma visits one year following the first ED visit. RESULTS: Among 909 children with a first asthma ED visit, 24% had a future acute asthma visit within one year. Future acute asthma visits were more likely in children with a nut/peanut allergy (OR 1.76, 95% CI: 1.15, 2.70), higher severity symptoms (OR 2.04, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.39), a primary care physician (OR 2.23, 95% CI: 1.26, 3.93), or a prior diagnosis of asthma (OR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.28). CONCLUSION: Children at risk for repeat acute asthma ED visits despite having a primary care provider and receiving recommended discharge management at their first ED visit can be identified by factors such as having a nut/peanut allergy, a prior asthma diagnosis, and higher severity symptoms at ED presentation. These factors can be used to target more intensive preventative interventions to those most in need.

On the Role of Error in Motor Learning.

The authors report 5 experiments that explored the role of error in motor learning. Participants practiced 4 distinct keypress sequences that varied in the amounts of advance information (i.e., choice) about which key to press next in the sequence. The amount of advance information resulted in differing levels of error during practice, which in general, was inversely related to retention performance. Although these findings support a beneficial role of error in motor learning, they also suggest that not all errors are equal in the learning process. Rather, we make a distinction between factors that induce errors that have desirable influences on learning compared to those that have undesirable effects.