A new implicit review instrument for measuring quality of care delivered to pediatric patients in the emergency department

BackgroundThere are few outcomes experienced by children receiving care in the Emergency Department (ED) that are amenable to measuring for the purposes of assessing of quality of care. The purpose of this study was to develop, test, and validate a new implicit review instrument that measures quality of care delivered to children in EDs.MethodsWe developed a 7-point structured implicit review instrument that encompasses four aspects of care, including the physician's initial data gathering, integration of information and development of appropriate diagnoses; initial treatment plan and orders; and plan for disposition and follow-up. Two pediatric emergency medicine physicians applied the 5-item instrument to children presenting in the highest triage category to four rural EDs, and we assessed the reliability of the average summary scores (possible range of 5-35) across the two reviewers using standard measures. We also validated the instrument by comparing this mean summary score between those with and without medication errors (ascertained independently by two pharmacists) using a two-sample t-test.ResultsWe reviewed the medical records of 178 pediatric patients for the study. The mean and median summary score for this cohort of patients were 27.4 and 28.5, respectively. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha of 0.92 and 0.89). All items showed a significant (p < 0.005) positive correlation between reviewers using the Spearman rank correlation (range 0.24 to 0.39). Exact agreement on individual items between reviewers ranged from 70.2% to 85.4%. The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient for the mean of the total summary score across the two reviewers was 0.65. The validity of the instrument was supported by the finding of a higher score for children without medication errors compared to those with medication errors which trended toward significance (mean score = 28.5 vs. 26.0, p = 0.076).ConclusionThe instrument we developed to measure quality of care provided to children in the ED has high internal consistency, fair to good inter-rater reliability and inter-rater correlation, and high content validity. The validity of the instrument is supported by the fact that the instrument's average summary score was lower in the presence of medication errors, which trended towards statistical significance

Asthma in emergency departments: Combined adult and paediatric versus paediatric only centres

Objective: To compare the management of paediatric patients with mild or moderate asthma in paediatric-only emergency departments (POEDs) to treatment in a mixed adult-child emergency departments (mixed EDs). Methods: Prospective, observational study conducted in 36 Australian emergency departments (EDs) for 2 weeks in 2001. Children aged 1–15 years with acute asthma classified as mild or moderate severity. Details of demography, severity assessment, and type of treatment facility, treatment and disposition were collected. Analysis used descriptive statistics, comparison of proportions by χ2, and multiple logistic regression. Results:Two-hundred and nine children were treated at POEDs and 257 at mixed EDs. The groups had similar severity. Spacers to deliver beta-agonists were used more frequently in POEDs (67.5% vs 24.2%; P < 0.01). Children treated at POEDs with a mild attack were more likely to be admitted (20.6% vs 9.5%; P < 0.02) and given salbutamol (82.8% vs 71.9%; P = 0.03). For children with moderate asthma, oral steroid prescription on hospital discharge was more common for those treated in a mixed ED (81.0% v 95.7%; P= 0.01). Ipratropium bromide (IB) was widely used at both types of ED but more commonly used in mixed EDs (41.7% vs 54.9%; P < 0.01). There were no differences in length-of-stay, representation rate within one month and oral steroid use for attack. Less than 2/3 of children with mild asthma attacks received steroid treatment in the ED. Conclusion: Treatment was similar between the two types of ED. IB was overused in mild asthma and oral steroids were underused in moderate asthma, by both ED types. Spacers were under-utilized in mixed EDs