Development of a Medical Complexity Score for Pediatric Aerodigestive Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a complexity scoring system to characterize the diverse population served in pediatric aerodigestive clinics and help predict their treatment outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A 7-point medical complexity score was developed through an iterative group consensus of relative stakeholders to capture the spectrum of comorbidities among the aerodigestive population. One point was assigned for each comorbid diagnosis in the following categories: airway anomaly, neurologic, cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, genetic diagnoses, and prematurity. A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients seen in the aerodigestive clinic who had ≥2 visits between 2017 and 2021. The predictive value of the complexity score for the selected outcome of feeding progression among children with dysphagia was analyzed with univariate and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We analyzed 234 patients with complexity scores assigned, showing a normal distribution (Shapiro Wilk P = .406) of the scores 1-7 (median, 4; mean, 3.50 ± 1.47). In children with dysphagia, there was waning success in the improvement of oral feeding with increasing complexity scores (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84; P = .001). Tube-fed children with higher complexity scores were incrementally less likely to achieve full oral diet (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40-0.89; P = .01). On multivariable analysis, neurologic comorbidity (OR, 0.26; P < .001) and airway malformation (OR, 0.35; P = .01) were associated with a decreased likelihood to improve in oral feeding. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a novel complexity score for the pediatric aerodigestive population that is easy to use, successfully stratifies diverse presentations, and shows promise as a predictive tool to assist in counseling and resource use.

Inhalation Injury: Which Providers Can Assess the Need for Intubation?

Previous studies have suggested that many burn patients undergo unnecessary intubation due to concern for inhalation injury. We hypothesized that burn surgeons would intubate burn patients at a lower rate than non-burn acute care surgeons (ACSs). We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted to an American Burn Association-verified burn center who presented emergently following burn injury from June 2015 to December 2021. Patients excluded include polytrauma patients, isolated friction burns, and patients intubated prior to hospital arrival. Our primary outcome was intubation rates between burn and non-burn ACSs. 388 patients met inclusion criteria. 240 (62%) patients were evaluated by a burn provider and 148 (38%) were evaluated by a non-burn provider; the groups were well-matched. In total, 73 (19%) of patients underwent intubation. There was no difference in the rate of emergent intubation, diagnosis of inhalation injury on bronchoscopy, time to extubation, or incidence of extubation within 48 hours between burn and non-burn ACSs. We found no difference between burn and non-burn ACSs in the airway evaluation and management of burn patients. Surgical providers with acute care surgery backgrounds and Advanced Trauma Life Support training are well-equipped for initial airway management in burn patients. Further studies should seek to compare other types of provider groups to identify opportunities for intervention and education in preventing unnecessary intubations.