Redirecting Nonurgent Patients From the Pediatric Emergency Department to Their Pediatrician Office for a Same-Day Visit-A Quality Improvement Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Providing high-quality care in the appropriate setting to optimize value is a worthy goal of an efficient health system. Consequences of managing nonurgent complaints in the emergency department (ED) have been described including inefficiency, loss of the primary care-patient relationship, and delayed care for other ED patients. The purpose of this initiative was to redirect nonurgent patients arriving in the ED to their primary care office for a same-day visit, and the SMART AIM was to increase redirected patients from 0% of those eligible to 30% in a 12-month period. METHODS: The setting was a pediatric ED (PED) and primary care office of a tertiary care pediatric medical system. The initiative utilized the electronic health record to identify and mediate the redirection of patients to the patient's primary care office after ED triage. The primary measurement was the percentage of eligible patients redirected. Additional measures included health benefits during the primary care visit (vaccines, well-visits) and a balancing measure of patients returned to the PED. RESULTS: The SMART AIM of >30% redirection was achieved and sustained with a final redirection rate of 46%. In total, 216 of 518 eligible patients were redirected, with zero untoward outcomes. The encounter time for redirected patients was similar for those who remained in the PED, and additional health benefits were appreciated for redirected patients. CONCLUSIONS: This initiative redirected nonurgent patients efficiently from a PED setting to their primary care office. The process is beneficial to patients and families and supports the patient-centered medical home. The balancing measure of no harm done to patients who accepted redirect reinforced the reliability of PED triage. The benefits achieved through the project highlight the value of the primary care-patient relationship and the continued need to improve access for patients and families.

Family-centered care in pediatric critical care transport.

OBJECTIVE: Family-centered care (FCC) in medicine highlights mutually beneficial partnerships among providers, patients, and families. In the field of specialty pediatric critical care transport (SPCCT), FCC includes family presence during transport. We sought to describe family presence and family/staff perspectives of FCC in transport. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved study established family presence rates among 5 SPCCT teams. At the top-performing family presence team, parents of transported children were interviewed. A staff survey measured perspectives on FCC using SurveyMonkey (Palo Alto, CA). Statistical tests including chi-square and Fisher exact tests for comparative data were applied using SPSSv17.0 software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). RESULTS: The cohort-wide range of family presence was 23% to 66%. Parents were 4 times more likely to accompany their child if transported by ground versus air (ground: 26 [59%] vs. air: 6 [26%]). Sex, race, travel distance from referral hospital, and child's age did not influence the rate of family accompaniment. Most staff (76%) received education on FCC. CONCLUSIONS: This study informs how transport factors and parent/staff perceptions influence parental presence on transport at a single center. Opportunities to optimize transport FCC include defining protocols for ground and air transport, establishing a more welcoming attitude toward parents, and designing an FCC educational module specific for transport staff.

Specialty pediatric transport in primary care or urgent care settings.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe a single center's experience with specialized critical care transport from non-hospital settings, including primary care offices and urgent care centers. We hypothesized that the majority of patients will require procedures outside the scope of practice of most EMS providers and will be better served by specialized pediatric critical care transport (SPCCT) teams. METHODS: This study sought to retrospectively evaluate instances where children (0-18 years old) were transported by our SPCCT team from nonhospital settings, including primary care offices and urgent care centers, in 2009 and 2010. Data were extracted from a customized database and appropriate statistical tests were applied, including Fisher's exact test for categorical comparisons and Mann-Whitney U test for non-parametric data comparisons. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included. Most of the children were transported for respiratory distress (78%), and many were treated with albuterol (42%) and steroids (42%) prior to the SPCCT team arrival. The most common interventions performed by the SPCCT team were obtaining IV access and administering IV fluid boluses; 4 (7.7%) patients required advanced critical care treatments unique to SPCCT. Most patients (n = 34; 65%) were directly admitted to the general care floor, but a high number of patients (n = 12; 23%; PICU = 11, NICU = 1) required pediatric or neonatal intensive care unit admission. Only 3 patients (5.7%) were discharged home without hospital admission. For the 11 patients admitted to the PICU, the median length of stay (LOS) was 2.5 days (IQR 0.14-13.2). All patients survived to hospital discharge with an additional hospital LOS of 1.3 days (IQR 0.2-6.7). Patients were billed for these critical care transports an average of $2,660.14 ± $940. CONCLUSION: Our small cohort demonstrates infrequent application of advanced critical care interventions beyond those provided by the referring primary care office or urgent care centers. This supports the practice of SPCCT teams providing transport services for select critically ill children at primary care offices and urgent care centers, but not as a standard practice for most pediatric patients in these settings.