Primary Care Access to an Online Decision Support Tool is Associated With Improvements in Some Aspects of Pediatric Migraine Care

Diagnostic Algorithm for Pediatric Headaches: A Clinical Improvement Initiative

BACKGROUND

The widespread variation in diagnosing primary headache disorders in children and adolescents results in reduced quality and high costs. Defining an algorithm for primary headache diagnoses in children and adolescents is part of a larger initiative to standardize and improve care. The aim of this algorithm was to increase the accuracy of headache diagnosis by formal criteria to more than 80% of patient encounters.

METHODS

A team of headache specialists, nurse practitioners, nurses, data analysts, and business specialists developed an algorithm based on available scientific evidence. This algorithm was vetted and adapted by the neurology faculty and headache specialists until final consensus was reached. Following three months of testing and validation, the algorithm was disseminated to general pediatric neurology clinics. The following information was gathered: percent of encounters utilizing the algorithm, percentage of encounters with appropriate diagnosis by formal criteria, percentage of encounters with appropriate testing ordered, and average cost per headache visit.

RESULTS

Correct diagnosis of primary headache by International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 criteria improved from 72% to 90% and appropriate testing improved from 80% to 94%. By the end of analysis, 94% of encounters were correctly implementing the algorithm. A year-long tracking revealed decreased cost of headache evaluation by 6% compared with the year prior.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized algorithm improved the diagnostic accuracy in general child neurology clinics. Expanding the algorithm to primary care and pediatric emergency rooms could have a greater impact on headache evaluation and diagnosis; this should result in improved care and outcomes with reduced cost.

Headache in Children and Adolescents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the approach to a child or adolescent with headache, the criteria for common diagnoses, and the evidence base for treatments.

RECENT FINDINGS

The guidelines for acute and preventive treatment of migraine were updated in 2019. These guidelines summarize the available evidence and outline the questions that should be addressed in future research. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of several new classes of drugs and devices to treat adult migraine in the past few years has resulted in ongoing or planned pediatric trials.

SUMMARY

Headache is a common symptom in children, and it is important to take a detailed history and perform a thorough physical examination to make the diagnosis. Nearly 1 in 10 children experience recurrent headaches due to migraine, which cause significant impairment in school performance and quality of life. The acute and preventive treatments that are currently available will help at least two-thirds of children with migraine, and several trials of new therapies offer hope for the future.

Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review

Background

Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are software programs that support the decision making of practitioners and other staff. Other reviews have analyzed the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. These reviews reported positive practitioner performance in over half the articles analyzed, but very little information was found for patient outcomes.

Objective

The purpose of this review was to analyze the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient medical outcomes. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were queried.

Methods

Articles were chosen based on year published (last 10 years), high quality, peer-reviewed sources, and discussion of the relationship between the use of CDSS as an intervention and links to practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers used an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation) to collect information on the relationship between CDSSs and practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers also collected observations of participants, intervention, comparison with control group, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) along with those showing implicit bias. Articles were analyzed by multiple reviewers following the Kruse protocol for systematic reviews. Data were organized into multiple tables for analysis and reporting.

Results

Themes were identified for both practitioner performance (n=38) and medical outcomes (n=36). A total of 66% (25/38) of articles had occurrences of positive practitioner performance, 13% (5/38) found no difference in practitioner performance, and 21% (8/38) did not report or discuss practitioner performance. Zero articles reported negative practitioner performance. A total of 61% (22/36) of articles had occurrences of positive patient medical outcomes, 8% (3/36) found no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes between intervention and control groups, and 31% (11/36) did not report or discuss medical outcomes. Zero articles found negative patient medical outcomes attributed to using CDSSs.

Conclusions

Results of this review are commensurate with previous reviews with similar objectives, but unlike these reviews we found a high level of reporting of positive effects on patient medical outcomes.