Semiautomated electronic medical record based system for monitoring delayed adverse events in pediatric endoscopy and sedation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a semiautomated electronic medical record (EMR) system to track pediatric endoscopic procedural adverse event (AE) at a tertiary referral children's hospital. METHODS: We developed an automated EMR based query for postprocedure AEs. Main outcome measurements within 30 days of procedure: return to emergency department, return to surgery, unplanned admissions and admissions with longer than intended stays. Events were graded using a recently described classification system for postendoscopy events and tracked for a 36-month period, from January 2017 to December 2019. RESULTS: Development of a semi-automated system was successful in comprehensive identification of endoscopy and sedation related AE. A total of 193 AEs (2%) were identified in all three categories. Seventy cases (0.7%) were noted to be a direct result of an endoscopic procedure. Of these cases, 31 (44%) were noted to be Grade 3, 5 cases (7%) Grade 4, and no Grade 5 AE occured. Higher rates of AE were observed after therapeutic procedures versus diagnostic (2.6% vs. 0.3%, p = <0.00001). AEs related to sedation occurred in 0.5% of procedures with the majority (84%) reported in patients with American Society of Anesthesia classification of 3 or greater. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic endoscopy remains a safe procedure and risk of both endoscopy and sedation related AE are low. Therapeutic procedures carry a higher risk but are still overwhelmingly safe. Institutional investment in this EMR based system allowed for sustainability and comprehensive tracking of endoscopy related AE.

Implementation of a Bleeding Risk Screening Tool and Hematology Referral Process Prior to Pediatric Endoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are considered low risk with an overall bleeding risk for upper and lower endoscopies of 0.11%. However, a certain population of patients may have a higher risk for bleeding, and there is not a standardized process for screening patients to determine who these patients are. METHODS: At Children's Wisconsin, our gastroenterology and hematology divisions adapted an abbreviated version of a validated, history-based bleeding risk screening tool and implemented a hematology referral process to identify those at risk for bleeding prior to their first endoscopy. Provider compliance with the bleeding screen, referral to hematology, time to be seen in hematology clinic, new diagnoses of bleeding disorders, and bleeding complications were assessed from 2019 to 2021 across 3 phases. RESULTS: Provider compliance with the bleeding screen improved throughout our study from 48% (120/251) to 75% (189/253). For those who screened positive, compliance with referral to hematology ranged from 38% to 74% across our phases. The overall time to be seen by hematology decreased from 30 days to 7.5 days. Eighteen patients ultimately screened positive and were seen in hematology clinic, of whom 22% (4/18) were diagnosed with a new bleeding disorder. No bleeding complications were seen in our study population. CONCLUSIONS: Our quality improvement project provided a standardized screening tool to assess preoperative bleeding risk and reinforced the value of a history-based screening tool. This modified screening tool identified those with an undiagnosed bleeding disorder and preventative measures were undertaken to prevent procedural bleeding complications.