Practice Pattern Variation in Test Ordering for Low-Acuity Pediatric Emergency Department Patients

Diagnostic testing in children: A qualitative study of pediatricians' considerations

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Studies in adult medicine have shown that physicians base testing decisions on the patient's clinical condition but also consider other factors, including local practice or patient expectations. In pediatrics, physicians and parents jointly decide on behalf of a (young) child. This might demand more explicit and more complex deliberations, with sometimes conflicting interests. We explored pediatricians' considerations in diagnostic test ordering and the factors that influence their deliberation.

METHOD

We performed in-depth, semistructured interviews with a purposively selected heterogeneous sample of 20 Dutch pediatricians. We analyzed transcribed interviews inductively using a constant comparative approach, and clustered data across interviews to derive common themes.

RESULTS

Pediatricians perceived test-related burden in children higher compared with adults, and reported that avoiding an unjustified burden causes them to be more restrictive and deliberate in test ordering. They felt conflicted when parents desired testing or when guidelines recommended diagnostic tests pediatricians perceived as unnecessary. When parents demanded testing, they would explore parental concern, educate parents about harms and alternative explanations of symptoms, and advocate watchful waiting. Yet they reported sometimes performing tests to appease parents or to comply with guidelines, because of feared personal consequences in the case of adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We obtained an overview of the considerations that are weighed in pediatric test decisions. The comparatively strong focus on prevention of harm motivates pediatricians to critically appraise the added value of testing and drivers of low-value testing. Pediatricians' relatively restrictive approach to testing could provide an example for other disciplines. Improved guidelines and physician and patient education could help to withstand the perceived pressure to test.

Delays in treatment and disposition attributable to undertriage of pediatric emergency medicine patients

BACKGROUND

Triage, the initial assessment and sorting of patients in the Emergency Department (ED), determines priority of evaluation and treatment. Little is known about the impact of undertriage, the underestimation of disease severity at triage, on clinical care in pediatric ED patients. We evaluate the impact of undertriage on time to disposition and treatment decisions in pediatric ED patients.

METHODS

This was a case control study of ED visits for patients <22 years of age, with an assigned Emergency Severity Index (ESI) score of 4 or 5, and associated hospital admission, nebulized treatment, supplemental oxygen, and/or intravenous (IV) line placement, between January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. Controls were sampled from a pool of patient visits with an ESI score of 3, matched by intervention, disposition, and date and hour of arrival. Primary outcome measures were time to order of intervention (nebulized treatment, oxygen administration, or IV placement) and time to disposition decision. A secondary outcome measure was return visits requiring admission or emergency intervention within 14 days of the index visit. Continuous variables (time to orders) were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sum test and dichotomous outcomes (return visits) were compared using odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Analysis was performed with Python v3.10.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 7245 undertriaged patients. Undertriaged patients had longer times to orders for nebulized treatments, (p < 0.001) IV placement, (p < 0.001) and admission (p < 0.001) when compared to controls. There were no significant differences in time to supplemental oxygen delivery and time to discharge compared to controls. Undertriaged patients were more likely to experience a return visit requiring admission or emergency intervention (OR 3.74, 95% CI 3.32,4.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Undertriage in the pediatric ED is associated with delays in care and disposition decisions and increases likelihood of return visits.

Practice variation across five European paediatric emergency departments: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

To compare paediatric healthcare practice variation among five European emergency departments (EDs) by analysing variability in decisions about diagnostic testing, treatment and admission.

DESIGN AND POPULATION

Consecutive paediatric visits in five European EDs in four countries (Austria, Netherlands, Portugal, UK) were prospectively collected during a study period of 9-36 months (2012-2015).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Practice variation was studied for the following management measures: lab testing, imaging, administration of intravenous medication and patient disposition after assessment at the ED.

ANALYSIS

Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for general patient characteristics and markers of disease severity. To assess whether ED was significantly associated with management, the goodness-of-fit of regression models based on all variables with and without ED as explanatory variable was compared. Management measures were analysed across different categories of presenting complaints.

RESULTS

Data from 111 922 children were included, with a median age of 4 years (IQR 1.7-9.4). There were large differences in frequencies of Manchester Triage System (MTS) urgency and selected MTS presentational flow charts. ED was a significant covariate for management measures. The variability in management among EDs was fairly consistent across different presenting complaints after adjustment for confounders. Adjusted OR (aOR) for laboratory testing were consistently higher in one hospital while aOR for imaging were consistently higher in another hospital. Iv administration of medication and fluids and admission was significantly more likely in two other hospitals, compared with others, for most presenting complaints.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinctive hospital-specific patterns in variability of management could be observed in these five paediatric EDs, which were consistent across different groups of clinical presentations. This could indicate fundamental differences in paediatric healthcare practice, influenced by differences in factors such as organisation of primary care, diagnostic facilities and available beds, professional culture and patient expectations.

Use of machine learning to predict clinical decision support compliance, reduce alert burden, and evaluate duplicate laboratory test ordering alerts

Objectives

While well-designed clinical decision support (CDS) alerts can improve patient care, utilization management, and population health, excessive alerting may be counterproductive, leading to clinician burden and alert fatigue. We sought to develop machine learning models to predict whether a clinician will accept the advice provided by a CDS alert. Such models could reduce alert burden by targeting CDS alerts to specific cases where they are most likely to be effective.

Materials and Methods

We focused on a set of laboratory test ordering alerts, deployed at 8 hospitals within the Partners Healthcare System. The alerts notified clinicians of duplicate laboratory test orders and advised discontinuation. We captured key attributes surrounding 60 399 alert firings, including clinician and patient variables, and whether the clinician complied with the alert. Using these data, we developed logistic regression models to predict alert compliance.

Results

We identified key factors that predicted alert compliance; for example, clinicians were less likely to comply with duplicate test alerts triggered in patients with a prior abnormal result for the test or in the context of a nonvisit-based encounter (eg, phone call). Likewise, differences in practice patterns between clinicians appeared to impact alert compliance. Our best-performing predictive model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.82. Incorporating this model into the alerting logic could have averted more than 1900 alerts at a cost of fewer than 200 additional duplicate tests.

Conclusions

Deploying predictive models to target CDS alerts may substantially reduce clinician alert burden while maintaining most or all the CDS benefit.

Assessing the effectiveness of pediatric emergency medicine education in emergency medicine residency training: A national survey

Background:

Evaluating the effectiveness of pediatric emergency medicine training is essential to ensure that emergency physicians and emergency medicine residents have sufficient knowledge, skill, and confidence in optimizing care for acute pediatric visits. Although the field of pediatric emergency medicine has experienced phenomenal growth in past decades, it still faces challenges in how to best implement the curriculums in emergency medicine residency training programs.

Objectives:

Exploring emergency physicians’ and emergency residents’ perspectives on pediatric emergency medicine training in emergency residency training programs in Taiwan through a nationwide survey.

Methods:

The survey was distributed to 1281 emergency physicians and emergency medicine residents in 43 teaching hospitals. The survey inquired about demographic data, hospital type, rank of proctored trainers and assessors, and the setting of pediatric emergency medicine training. Participants’ confidence in managing acute pediatric visits and their satisfaction and reflections of their pediatric emergency medicine training were explored.

Results:

In all, 258 responses were received from 117 residents and 141 emergency physicians. Seventy-seven percent reported working in medical centers. Clinical supervision was primarily performed by pediatric attending physicians and emergency physicians. Fifty-eight percent of participants felt satisfied with their pediatric emergency medicine training. However, only 52.3% felt confident managing acute pediatric visits, which was attributed to inadequate exposure to pediatric patients. Residents noted lack of confidence in managing newborns, infants, and clinical procedures. Therefore, simulation training and point-of-care ultrasound learning were considered advantageous.

Conclusion:

The pediatric emergency medicine training in emergency medicine residency programs is diverse in intensive care training, supervisors, and assessors. Surveys demonstrate that learning experience in pediatric wards and emergency department rotations is associated with overall satisfaction with pediatric emergency medicine training; inadequate exposure to pediatric patients contributed to learners having less confidence. Emergency medicine residency program reform might focus on adequate hands-on pediatric patient care.

Educational Benefits of Allowing Pediatrician Supervision of Emergency Medicine Residents

BACKGROUND

According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education emergency medicine (EM) program requirements, EM residents on EM rotations must be supervised by board-certified/board-prepared EM or pediatric EM (PEM) faculty.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand the effect of allowing EM residents to be supervised by attending pediatricians while caring for pediatric urgent care patients.

METHODS

The EM residents were permitted to staff pediatric urgent care patients with either an EM/PEM attending or an attending pediatrician from August 2017 to July 2018. Outcomes were assessed through resident focus groups, a mixed-methods survey of EM residents and EM/PEM/pediatrician attendings, and clinical outcomes, including length of stay, best evidence/clinical care guideline adherence, and 48-hour return visits requiring admission. Qualitative data were inductively coded using a phenomenological framework, with themes emerging from consensus discussion.

RESULTS

Ninety percent of residents participated in 1 of 7 focus groups. Four key themes emerged from qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts: (1) pediatricians have unique skills that complement those of EM physicians; (2) EM resident education improved; (3) patients may get better care with dual staffing; and (4) other PEM department and urgent care team members may have benefited from the change. The survey response rate was 72%, and it did not uncover additional themes. Length of stay was shorter for patients supervised by attending pediatricians (114 versus 128 minutes, P < .001); there was no difference in best evidence/clinical care guideline adherence or 48-hour return visits requiring admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' perceived education was improved by adding complementary perspectives without significant negative consequences for learners or patients.