Comparing Outcomes Between Direct and ED Admissions for Neonatal Hyperbilirubinemia.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric direct admissions (DA) have multiple benefits including reduced emergency department (ED) volumes, greater patient and provider satisfaction, and decreased costs without compromising patient safety. We sought to compare resource utilization and outcomes between patients with a primary diagnosis of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia directly admitted with those admitted from the ED. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study at a large, academic, free-standing children's hospital (2017-2021). Patients were between 24 hours and 14 days old with a gestational age of ≥35 weeks, admitted with a primary diagnosis of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS), time to clinical care, resource utilization, NICU transfer, and 7-day readmission for phototherapy. RESULTS: A total of 1098 patients were included, with 276 (25.1%) ED admissions and 822 (74.9%) DAs. DAs experienced a shorter median time to bilirubin level collection (1.9 vs 2.1 hours, P = .003), received less intravenous fluids (8.9% vs 51.4%, P < .001), had less bilirubin levels collected (median of 3.0 vs 4.0, P < .001), received phototherapy sooner (median of 0.8 vs 4.2 hours, P < .001), and had a shorter LOS (median of 21 vs 23 hours, P = .002). One patient who was directly admitted required transfer to the NICU. No differences were observed in the 7-day readmission rates for phototherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Directly admitting patients for the management of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia is a preferred alternative to ED admission as our study demonstrated that DAs had a shorter time to clinical care, shorter LOS, and less unnecessary resource utilization with no difference in 7-day readmissions for phototherapy.

Case-Based Immigrant Health Ethics Curriculum: A Pathway to Improve Care and Advocacy.

Introduction Immigrants comprised a significant portion of the total population in the United States (US), and a considerable number of children in the US live with at least one immigrant parent, which has continued to increase over the past decades. However, healthcare providers (HPs) in the US report lack of comfort in interacting with immigrant and refugee populations. Methods The authors, in partnership with the Midwest Consortium of Global Health Educators, developed an innovative, interactive ethics curriculum within the Immigrant Partnership Advocacy and Curricular Kit (I-PACK). They sought to increase HPs' confidence in navigating complex encounters with immigrant families by teaching a relevant ethical framework, highlighting the importance of cultural humility, and equipping learners with an ethics tool (five-box Method) for use in clinical encounters. They piloted the curriculum during three workshop sessions in 2020-2021, and this curriculum continues to be used nationally as a part of I-PACK. Results Pre- and post-session surveys indicated that all participants (100%, n=22) reported acquisition of new skills/knowledge and 19 (86%) felt confident applying this to their clinical practice. The participants reported appreciation for an ethical framework with which to analyze cases, enjoyment of active participation in small group discussions, and utility of the five-box method tool. Some areas of improvement offered were to have more cases and more time dedicated to small-group discussions. Conclusions Given the success of the I-PACK ethics curriculum pilot, the authors plan to incorporate immigrant health cases in the general ethics training in medical school classes and pediatric residency training. Furthermore, they will advocate for the importance of including immigrant health ethics across graduate medical education, as fluency and competence in navigating the ethics of immigrant health are required to provide patient-centered, culturally informed care to all populations.