The Impact of the American Academy of Pediatrics Brief Resolved Unexplained Event Guidelines on Gastrointestinal Testing and Prescribing Practices.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if hospitalization, testing, diagnosis, and management of suspected gastroesophageal reflux, and follow-up visits decreased since introduction of American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for brief resolved unexplained events (BRUEs). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of infants with BRUE evaluated at Boston Children's Hospital in the year before and after guideline implementation to determine if practice patterns have changed. Outcomes included hospitalization rates, frequency of swallow assessments, other diagnostic testing, and reflux diagnoses, cost of care, and number of repeat visits. Groups were compared based on whether they presented before or after guideline implementation. RESULTS: In total, 359 subjects (186 pre-, 173 post-guidelines) were identified. There were no significant differences in practice patterns or outcomes before or after guideline implementation. Subjects had mean age 2.53 ± 0.15 months, and 80% were hospitalized for 2.49 ± 0.26 days. Each subject had 2.47 diagnostic tests performed, and 89% were noncontributory. Despite only 13% having videofluoroscopic swallow study performed, 72% showed aspiration/penetration. No subject had gastroesophageal reflux testing, yet reflux was implicated as the cause for admission in 40% of subjects, resulting in increased odds of discharge on acid suppressing medications (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.68-4.92, P = .0001). In follow-up, 28% of subjects had repeat hospitalizations or emergency department visits for persistent symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Infants with BRUE continue to undergo low-yield diagnostic testing and after admission remain symptomatic and frequently re-present to medical care. Swallow testing remains infrequent despite its high-yield, reflux continues to be implicated and children are still being discharged on acid suppression despite lack of efficacy.

Boston children's hospital community asthma initiative: Five-year cost analyses of a home visiting program.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs and benefits of the Boston Children's Hospital Community Asthma Initiative (CAI) through reduction of Emergency Department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for the full pilot-phase program participants. METHODS: A cost-benefit analyses was conducted using hospital administrative data to determine an adjusted Return on Investment (ROI): on all 268 patients enrolled in the CAI program during the 33-month pilot program phase of CAI intervention between October 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008 using a comparison group of 818 patients from a similar cohort in neighboring ZIP codes without CAI intervention. Cost data through June 30, 2013 were used to examine cost changes and calculate an adjusted ROI over a 5-year post-intervention period. RESULTS: CAI patients had a cost reduction greater than the comparison group of $1,216 in Year 1 (P = 0.001), $1,320 in Year 2 (P < 0.001), $1,132 (P = 0.002) in Year 3, $1,123 (P = 0.004) in Year 4, and $997 (P = 0.022) in Year 5. Adjusting for the cost savings for the comparison group, the cost savings from the intervention resulted in an adjusted ROI of 1.91 over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Community-based, multidisciplinary, coordinated disease management programs can decrease the incidence of costly hospitalizations and ED visits from asthma. An ROI of greater than one, as found in this cost analysis, supports the business case for the provision of community-based asthma services as part of patient-centered medical homes and Accountable Care Organizations.

A cost analysis for a community-based case management intervention program for pediatric asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the costs and benefits of the Boston Children's Hospital Community Asthma Initiative (CAI) program through reduction of Emergency Department (ED) visits and hospitalizations and quality of life (QOL) for patients and their families due to reduced missed school days and work days. METHODS: Cost-benefit analysis was used to determine an adjusted Return on Investment (ROI) for all 102 patients enrolled in the CAI program in the calendar year 2006 after controlling for changes in a comparable population without CAI intervention. A societal ROI (SROI) was also computed by including additional indirect benefits due to reduced missed school days for patients and work days for caregivers. RESULTS: Adjusted cost savings from fewer ED visits and hospitalizations resulted in an adjusted ROI of 1.33 (adjusted Net Present Value, (NPV) of savings = $83,863) during the first 3 years after controlling for factors other than the CAI intervention. When benefits due to reduced missed school days and missed work days were added to adjusted cost savings, the SROI increased to 1.85 (Societal NPV of savings = $215,100). CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, coordinated disease management programs offer the opportunity to prevent costly complications and hospitalizations for chronic diseases, while improving QOL for patients and families. This cost analysis supports the business case for the provision of proactive community-based asthma services that are traditionally not reimbursed by the fee-for-service health care system.

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Reduce Gastrostomy Tube Placement in Aspirating Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Oropharyngeal dysphagia and aspiration may occur in infants and children. Currently, there is wide practice variation regarding when to feed children orally or place more permanent gastrostomy tube placement. Through implementation of an evidence-based guideline (EBG), we aimed to standardize the approach to these patients and reduce the rates of gastrostomy tube placement. METHODS: Between January 2014 and December 2018, we designed and implemented a quality improvement intervention creating an EBG to be used by gastroenterologists evaluating patients ≤2 years of age with respiratory symptoms who were found to aspirate on videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS). Our primary aim was to encourage oral feeding and decrease the use of gastrostomy tube placement by 10% within 1 year of EBG initiation; balancing measures included total hospital readmissions or emergency department (ED) visits within 6 months of the abnormal VFSS. RESULTS: A total of 1668 patients (27.2%) were found to have aspiration or penetration noted on an initial VFSS during our initiative. Mean gastrostomy tube placement in these patients was 10.9% at the start of our EBG implementation and fell to 5.2% approximately 1 year after EBG initiation; this improvement was sustained throughout the next 3 years. Our balancing measures of ED visits and hospital readmissions also did not change during this time period. CONCLUSIONS: Through implementation of this EBG, we reduced gastrostomy tube placement by 50% in patients presenting with oropharyngeal dysphagia and aspiration, without increasing subsequent hospital admissions or ED visits.