Effects of a Patient Activation Tool on Decision Making Between Surgery and Nonoperative Management for Pediatric Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Compare the Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Non-operative Management With Early Operative Management of Simple Appendicitis in Children After the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Non-operative management (NOM) of simple appendicitis is becoming an increasingly researched treatment option. This systematic review aims to describe the short and long-term failure rates of NOM and the complication rate of appendicectomy in children with simple appendicitis.

METHODS

The systematic review was registered a priori (CRD42022322149). Study inclusion criteria are: participants aged ≤ 18 years of age; groups undergoing both NOM and appendicectomy for simple appendicitis; outcomes including one or more of: NOM failure rate at 30 days or 1 year and beyond; study design: RCT or case control study. Four databases were searched and 3 reviewers determined study eligibility and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed and meta-analysis was performed using Stata.

RESULTS

The database search identified 2731 articles, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria; 4 RCTs and 10 case controlled studies. All studies had moderate-serious risk of bias. There were no deaths in either group in any study. Meta-analysis demonstrated a 30 day failure rate of 20 % (95 % CI 11-29 %) and 11 studies reported failure rate at 1 year or beyond at 32 % (95 % CI 25-38 %). Rates of significant complications of appendicectomy was 1 % (95 % CI 0-1 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-operative management of simple appendicitis in children is safe, with moderate early success. The failure rate increases over time, resulting in eventual appendicectomy in a third of the children diagnosed with appendicitis. These data will enable clinicians to have an informed discussion with children and their parents about their treatment options for simple appendicitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

Appendicitis in Children

The management of pediatric appendicitis continues to advance with the development of evidence-based treatment algorithms and a recent shift toward patient-centered treatment approaches. Further research should focus on development of standardized institution-specific diagnostic algorithms to minimize rates of missed diagnosis and appendiceal perforation and refinement of evidence-based clinical treatment pathways that reduce complication rates and minimize health care resource utilization.

Verbal Descriptions of the Probability of Treatment Complications Lead to High Variability in Risk Perceptions: A Survey Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether different methods for communicating the probability of treatment complications for operative and nonoperative appendicitis treatments result in differences in risk perception.

BACKGROUND

Surgeons must communicate the probability of treatment complications to patients, and how risks are communicated may impact the accuracy and variability in patient risk perceptions and ultimately their decision making.

METHODS

A series of online surveys of American adults communicated the probability of complications associated with surgical or antibiotic treatment of acute appendicitis. Probability was communicated with verbal descriptors (eg, "uncommon"), point estimates (eg, "3% risk"), or risk ranges (eg, "1% to 5%"). Respondents then estimated the probability of a complication for a "typical patient with appendicitis." The Fligner-Killeen test of homogeneity of variance was used to compare the variability in respondent risk estimates based on the method of probability communication.

RESULTS

Among 296 respondents, variance in probability estimates was significantly higher when verbal descriptions were used compared to point estimates ( P < 0.001) or risk ranges ( P < 0.001). Identical verbal descriptors produced meaningfully different risk estimates depending on the complication being described. For example, "common" was perceived as a 45.6% for surgical site infection but 61.7% for antibiotic-associated diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

Verbal probability descriptors are associated with widely varying and inaccurate perceptions about treatment risks. Surgeons should consider alternative ways to communicate probability during informed consent and shared decision-making discussions.

Reporting of patient involvement: a mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications using a targeted search strategy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the extent and quality of patient involvement reporting in examples of current practice in health research.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study. We used a targeted search strategy across three cohorts to identify health research publications that reported patient involvement: original research articles published in 2019 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), articles listed in the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) database (2019), and articles citing the GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public) reporting checklist for patient involvement or a critical appraisal guideline for user involvement. Publications were coded according to three coding schemes: 'phase of involvement', the GRIPP2-Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) reporting checklist and the critical appraisal guideline.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The phase of the study in which patients were actively involved. For the BMJ sample, the proportion of publications that reported patient involvement. The quality of reporting based on the GRIPP2-SF reporting guideline. The quality of patient involvement based on the critical appraisal guideline. Quantitative and qualitative results are reported.

RESULTS

We included 86 publications that reported patient involvement. Patients were most frequently involved in study design (90% of publications, n=77), followed by study conduct (71%, n=61) and dissemination (42%, n=36). Reporting of patient involvement was often incomplete, for example, only 40% of publications (n=34) reported the aim of patient involvement. While the methods (57%, n=49) and results (59%, n=51) of involvement were reported more frequently, reporting was often unspecific and the influence of patients' input remained vague. Therefore, a systematic assessment of the quality and impact of patient involvement according to the critical appraisal guideline was not feasible across samples.

CONCLUSIONS

As patient involvement is increasingly seen as an integral part of the research process and requested by funding bodies, it is essential that researchers receive specific guidance on how to report patient involvement activities. Complete reporting builds the foundation for assessing the quality of patient involvement and its impact on research.

Patient experience or patient satisfaction? A systematic review of child- and family-reported experience measures in pediatric surgery

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are increasingly recognized as important health care quality indicators. PREMs measure patients' perception of the care they have received, differing from satisfaction ratings, which measure their expectations. The use of PREMs in pediatric surgery is limited, prompting this systematic review to assess their characteristics and identify areas for improvement.

METHODS

A search was conducted in eight databases from inception until January 12, 2022, to identify PREMs used with pediatric surgical patients, with no language restrictions. We focused on studies of patient experience but also included studies that assessed satisfaction and sampled experience domains. The quality of the included studies was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Following title and abstract screening of 2633 studies, 51 were included for full-text review, of which 22 were subsequently excluded because they measured only patient satisfaction rather than experience, and 14 were excluded for a range of other reasons. Out of the 15 included studies, questionnaires used in 12 studies were proxy-reported by parents and in 3 by both parents and children; none focused only on the child. Most instruments were developed in-house for each specific study, without patients' involvement in the process, and were not validated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PROMs are increasingly used in pediatric surgery, PREMs are not yet in use, being typically substituted by satisfaction surveys. Significant efforts are needed to develop and implement PREMs in pediatric surgical care, in order to effectively capture children's and families' voices.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Parental attitudes towards choosing between operative and nonoperative management of pediatric acute appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Making healthcare decisions for children can be challenging for parents or guardians. We aimed to characterize the decision-making preferences and stress of parents or guardians who were offered both appendectomy or nonoperative management (NOM) for children with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Criteria was developed for offering operative or NOM for patients. At the time of decision, parents or guardians completed a survey assessing their understanding of treatment options, stress and preferences in being given the choice. An outpatient follow-up survey was later administered to evaluate post-decision satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 45 respondents were included in the study. More than 95% endorsed understanding of the risks/benefits of the options and felt supported and satisfied with their decision. Half felt the process was more than minimally stressful, 77% felt the decision was easy to make, 89% liked being asked and 95% preferred to make the decision themselves with varying degrees of input from their physician. Of the 62% of parents or guardians who completed the follow-up survey, >90% were satisfied with their decision and one respondent regretted their choice.

DISCUSSION

When offered the choice between operative and NOM of acute appendicitis, half of parents or guardians felt greater than minimal stress. The majority endorsed adequate understanding of the options, felt it was an easy decision, and maintained the desire to be the primary decision maker for their child. Our study provides preliminary data on parental or guardian attitudes towards shared decision-making in the surgical setting. Follow-up studies should focus on identifying predictors for those who feel increased stress and difficulty with decision-making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated With the Failure of Nonoperative Management of Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Children: Secondary Analysis of a Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The factors associated with the failure of nonoperative management of appendicitis and the differences in patient-reported outcomes between successful and unsuccessful nonoperative management remain unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate factors associated with the failure of nonoperative management of appendicitis and compare patient-reported outcomes between patients whose treatment succeeded and those whose treatment failed.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study was a planned subgroup secondary analysis conducted in 10 children's hospitals that included 370 children aged 7 to 17 years with uncomplicated appendicitis enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial between May 1, 2015, and October 31, 2018, with 1-year follow-up comparing nonoperative management with antibiotics vs surgery for uncomplicated appendicitis. Statistical analysis was performed from November 1, 2019, to February 12, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Nonoperative management with antibiotics vs surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Failure of nonoperative management and patient-reported outcomes. The relative risk (RR) of failure based on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics was calculated. Patient-reported outcomes were compared based on the success or failure of nonoperative management.

RESULTS

Of 370 patients (34.6% of 1068 total patients; 229 boys [61.9%]; median age, 12.3 years [IQR, 10.0-14.6 years]) enrolled in the nonoperative group, treatment failure occurred for 125 patients (33.8%) at 1 year, with 53 patients (14.3%) undergoing appendectomy during initial hospitalization and 72 patients (19.5%) experiencing delayed treatment failure after hospital discharge. Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was associated with increased risk of in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.0-4.4]) but not delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.7-2.3]) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]). Pain duration greater than 24 hours was associated with decreased risk of delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-1.0]) but not in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.5-2.7]) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.2]). There was no increased risk of treatment failure associated with age, white blood cell count, sex, race, ethnicity, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, symptoms at presentation, or imaging results. Health care satisfaction at 30 days and patient-reported, health-related quality of life at 30 days and 1 year were not different. Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs 27.0; difference, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.01-2.0]) and 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.2-2.0]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This analysis suggests that a higher pain level at presentation was associated with a higher risk of initial failure of nonoperative management and that a longer duration of pain was associated with lower risk of delayed treatment failure. Although satisfaction was high in both groups, satisfaction with the treatment decision was higher among patients with successful nonoperative management at 1 year.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02271932.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Nonoperative management of appendicitis in children

Appendicitis is a common condition in childhood and adolescence that frequently requires urgent surgical intervention. For almost two centuries appendicitis has been recognized as a medical problem with a surgical solution. Currently the appendix can be removed with a minimally invasive approach, low anesthetic and surgical risk, and swift hospital discharge. Despite these advances, surgery and anesthesia have associated risks including postoperative infection, bleeding, hernia and organ injury among others. In addition, surgery requires time off of school and work to recover and associated healthcare costs can be significant. In both adult and pediatric populations, quality data suggesting a nonoperative approach is suggesting a change to the traditional surgical paradigm. Adults studies have demonstrated both safety and efficacy in the nonoperative management of acute appendicitis. In selected children with uncomplicated appendicitis, initial nonoperative management has been shown to be safe with fewer complications, fewer disability days and less healthcare costs while avoiding the risks inherent to surgery. Ongoing randomized controlled clinical trials in both the United States and Europe seek to further demonstrate the safety of nonoperative management and assist physicians with educating patients about the risk profile of their treatment decision. In complicated appendicitis presenting with abscess or acute appendiceal phlegmon, an initial nonoperative strategy with or without abscess drainage followed by interval appendectomy is the current state of the art though the utility of interval appendectomy is questioned.

Implementation of Electronic Clinical Decision Support Tools for Antibiotic Stewardship in Pediatric Appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of clinical decision support (CDS) tools to promote antibiotic stewardship in pediatric appendicitis remains poorly understood. Here, we developed an electronic order panel (OP) to assist with decreased utilization of extended spectrum antibiotics.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients (≤18 years) at a single institution from May 2018 to October 2019 treated with ≥1 dose of preferred (narrow) or nonpreferred (broad-spectrum) antibiotics was performed, and they were categorized as pre- (PIC) or postimplementation cohorts (PISC).

RESULTS

Of 234 encounters, 170 (73%) and 107 (46%) received preferred and nonpreferred antibiotics, respectively. Postimplementation cohort encounters had a sustained 50% increase in preferred antibiotic use compared to PIC (92% vs 42%, P = .014). Order panel utilization accounted for 31% of overall encounters and 44% of PISC encounters.

CONCLUSION

Despite sustained improvement in antibiotic stewardship, OP utilization remains low. The use of CDS tools may not be a good process measure for quality improvement.

Development of an App to Facilitate Communication and Shared Decision-making With Parents of Febrile Infants ≤ 60 Days Old

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop and test a tool to engage parents of febrile infants ≤ 60 days of age evaluated in the emergency department (ED). The tool was designed to improve communication for all parents and to support shared decision-making (SDM) about whether to perform a lumbar puncture (LP) for infants 29 to 60 days of age.

METHODS

We conducted a multiphase development and testing process: 1) individual, semistructured interviews with parents and clinicians (pediatric and general emergency medicine [EM] physicians and pediatric EM nurses) to learn their preferences for a communication and SDM tool; 2) design of a "storyboard" of the tool with design impression testing; 3) development of a software application (i.e., app) prototype, called e-Care; and 4) usability testing of e-Care, using qualitative assessment and the system usability scale (SUS).

RESULTS

We interviewed 27 parents and 23 clinicians. Interviews revealed several themes, including that a communication tool should augment but not replace verbal communication; a Web-based format was preferred; and information about infections and testing, including the rationales for specific tests, would be valuable. We then developed separate versions of e-Care for infants ≤ 28 days and 29 to 60 days of age, in both English and Spanish. The e-Care app includes four sections: 1) homepage; 2) why testing is done; 3) what tests are done; and 4) what happens after testing, including a table for parents of infants 29 to 60 days of age to compare the risks/benefits of LP in preparation for an SDM conversation. Parents and clinicians reported that e-Care was understandable and helpful. The mean SUS score was 90.3 (95% confidence interval = 84 to 96.6), representing "excellent" usability.

CONCLUSIONS

The e-Care app is a useable and understandable tool to support communication and SDM with parents of febrile infants ≤ 60 days of age in the ED.

Pediatric Patient and Caregiver Values in Treatment Decision-making for Uncomplicated Appendicitis

This cohort study surveys pediatric patients and their caregivers to elicit reasons for their preferences for nonoperative management vs surgery for uncomplicated appendicitis.

Association of Nonoperative Management Using Antibiotic Therapy vs Laparoscopic Appendectomy With Treatment Success and Disability Days in Children With Uncomplicated Appendicitis

Importance

Nonoperative management with antibiotics alone has the potential to treat uncomplicated pediatric appendicitis with fewer disability days than surgery.

Objective

To determine the success rate of nonoperative management and compare differences in treatment-related disability, satisfaction, health-related quality of life, and complications between nonoperative management and surgery in children with uncomplicated appendicitis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multi-institutional nonrandomized controlled intervention study of 1068 children aged 7 through 17 years with uncomplicated appendicitis treated at 10 tertiary children's hospitals across 7 US states between May 2015 and October 2018 with 1-year follow-up through October 2019. Of the 1209 eligible patients approached, 1068 enrolled in the study.

Interventions

Patient and family selection of nonoperative management with antibiotics alone (nonoperative group, n = 370) or urgent (≤12 hours of admission) laparoscopic appendectomy (surgery group, n = 698).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 2 primary outcomes assessed at 1 year were disability days, defined as the total number of days the child was not able to participate in all of his/her normal activities secondary to appendicitis-related care (expected difference, 5 days), and success rate of nonoperative management, defined as the proportion of patients initially managed nonoperatively who did not undergo appendectomy by 1 year (lowest acceptable success rate, ≥70%). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for differences between treatment groups for all outcome assessments.

Results

Among 1068 patients who were enrolled (median age, 12.4 years; 38% girls), 370 (35%) chose nonoperative management and 698 (65%) chose surgery. A total of 806 (75%) had complete follow-up: 284 (77%) in the nonoperative group; 522 (75%) in the surgery group. Patients in the nonoperative group were more often younger (median age, 12.3 years vs 12.5 years), Black (9.6% vs 4.9%) or other race (14.6% vs 8.7%), had caregivers with a bachelor's degree (29.8% vs 23.5%), and underwent diagnostic ultrasound (79.7% vs 74.5%). After IPTW, the success rate of nonoperative management at 1 year was 67.1% (96% CI, 61.5%-72.31%; P = .86). Nonoperative management was associated with significantly fewer patient disability days at 1 year than did surgery (adjusted mean, 6.6 vs 10.9 days; mean difference, -4.3 days (99% CI, -6.17 to -2.43; P < .001). Of 16 other prespecified secondary end points, 10 showed no significant difference.

Conclusion and Relevance

Among children with uncomplicated appendicitis, an initial nonoperative management strategy with antibiotics alone had a success rate of 67.1% and, compared with urgent surgery, was associated with statistically significantly fewer disability days at 1 year. However, there was substantial loss to follow-up, the comparison with the prespecified threshold for an acceptable success rate of nonoperative management was not statistically significant, and the hypothesized difference in disability days was not met.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02271932.