The establishment of a primary spine care practitioner and its benefits to health care reform in the United States

It is widely recognized that the dramatic increase in health care costs in the United States has not led to a corresponding improvement in the health care experience of patients or the clinical outcomes of medical care. In no area of medicine is this more true than in the area of spine related disorders (SRDs). Costs of medical care for SRDs have skyrocketed in recent years. Despite this, there is no evidence of improvement in the quality of this care. In fact, disability related to SRDs is on the rise. We argue that one of the key solutions to this is for the health care system to have a group of practitioners who are trained to function as primary care practitioners for the spine. We explain the reasons we think a primary spine care practitioner would be beneficial to patients, the health care system and society, some of the obstacles that will need to be overcome in establishing a primary spine care specialty and the ways in which these obstacles can be overcome.https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-709X-19-1

Disparities in Adherence to Pediatric Sepsis Guidelines across a Spectrum of Emergency Departments: A Multicenter, Cross-sectional Observational In Situ Simulation Study

BACKGROUND: Each year in the United States, 72,000 pediatric patients develop septic shock, at a cost of $4.8 billion. Adherence to practice guidelines can significantly reduce mortality; however, few methods to compare performance across a spectrum of emergency departments (EDs) have been described. OBJECTIVES: We employed standardized, in situ simulations to measure and compare adherence to pediatric sepsis guidelines across a spectrum of EDs. We hypothesized that pediatric EDs (PEDs) would have greater adherence to the guidelines than general EDs (GEDs). We also explored factors associated with improved performance. METHODS: This multi-center observational study examined in situ teams caring for a simulated infant in septic shock. The primary outcome was overall adherence to the pediatric sepsis guideline as measured by six subcomponent metrics. Characteristics of teams were compared using multivariable logistic regression to describe factors associated with improved performance. RESULTS: We enrolled 47 interprofessional teams from 24 EDs. Overall, 21/47 teams adhered to all six sepsis metrics (45%). PEDs adhered to all six metrics more than GEDs (93% vs. 22%; difference 71%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 43-84). Adherent teams had significantly higher Emergency Medical Services for Children readiness scores, MD composition of physicians to total team members, teamwork scores, provider perceptions of pediatric preparedness, and provider perceptions of sepsis preparedness. In a multivariable regression model, only greater composite team experience had greater adjusted odds of achieving an adherent sepsis score (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Using standardized in situ scenarios, we revealed high variability in adherence to the pediatric sepsis guideline across a spectrum of EDs. PEDs demonstrated greater adherence to the guideline than GEDs; however, in adjusted analysis, only composite team experience level of the providers was associated with improved guideline adherence

Differences in the quality of pediatric resuscitative care across a spectrum of emergency departments

Copyright 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. IMPORTANCE The quality of pediatric resuscitative care delivered across the spectrum of emergency departments (EDs) in the United States is poorly described. In a recent study, more than 4000 EDs completed the Pediatric Readiness Survey (PRS); however, the correlation of PRS scores with the quality of simulated or real patient care has not been described. OBJECTIVE To measure and compare the quality of resuscitative care delivered to simulated pediatric patients across a spectrum of EDs and to examine the correlation of PRS scores with quality measures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective multicenter cohort study evaluated 58 interprofessional teams in their native pediatric or general ED resuscitation bays caring for a series of 3 simulated critically ill patients (sepsis, seizure, and cardiac arrest). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A composite quality score (CQS)was measured as the sum of 4 domains: (1) adherence to sepsis guidelines, (2) adherence to cardiac arrest guidelines, (3) performance on seizure resuscitation, and (4) teamwork. Pediatric Readiness Survey scores and health care professional demographics were collected as independent data. Correlations were explored between CQS and individual domain scores with PRS. RESULTS Overall, 58 teams from 30 hospitals participated (8 pediatric EDs [PEDs], 22 general EDs [GEDs]). The mean CQS was 71 (95%CI, 68-75); PEDs had a higher mean CQS (82; 95% CI, 79-85) vs GEDs (66; 95%CI, 63-69) and outperformed GEDs in all domains. However, when using generalized estimating equations to estimate CQS controlling for clustering of the data, PED status did not explain a higher CQS (β = 4.28; 95%CI, -4.58 to 13.13) while the log of pediatric patient volume did explain a higher CQS (β = 9.57; 95%CI, 2.64-16.49). The correlation of CQS to PRS was moderate (r = 0.51; P \u3c .001). The correlation was weak for cardiac arrest (r = 0.24; P = .07), weak for sepsis (ρ = 0.45; P \u3c .001) and seizure (ρ = 0.43; P = .001), and strong for teamwork (ρ = 0.71; P \u3c .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This multicenter study noted significant differences in the quality of simulated pediatric resuscitative care across a spectrum of EDs. The CQS was higher in PEDs compared with GEDs. However, when controlling for pediatric patient volume and other variables in a multivariable model, PED status does not explain a higher CQS while pediatric patient volume does. The correlation of the PRS was moderate for simulation-based measures of quality

From Concept to Publication: Effectiveness of the International Network for Simulation-Based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education Project Development Process at Generating Simulation Scholarship

BACKGROUND: As simulation matures, it is critical to develop pathways for researchers. A recent analysis, however, demonstrates a low conversion rate between abstract and peer-reviewed journal publication in our field. The International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education has used the ALERT Presentation process for the past decade as a means of accelerating research. In this study, we analyze the scholarly products attributable to ALERT Presentations. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to all International Network for Simulation-based Pediatric Innovation, Research, and Education Advanced Look Exploratory Research Template (ALERT) Presentation first authors from January 2011 through January 2020. Presenters were asked to provide information on abstracts, grants, journal publications, and book chapters related to their ALERT Presentation, as well as basic demographic information. A structured literature search was conducted for those ALERT Presentations whose authors did not return a survey. The resulting database was descriptively analyzed, and statistical correlations between demographic variables and scholarship were examined. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five new ALERT presentations were presented over 10 years. We identified 361 associated scholarly works (170 conference abstracts, 125 peer-reviewed journal publications, 65 grants, and 1 book chapter). Sixty-one percent (101 of 165) of ALERT Presentations produced at least 1 item of scholarship, and 59% (34 of 58) of ALERT Presentations that resulted in at least 1 abstract also led to at least 1 peer-reviewed journal article. Presenter gender was associated with likelihood of journal publication. CONCLUSIONS: The ALERT Presentation process is an effective approach for facilitating the development of projects that result in disseminated scholarship. Wider adoption may benefit other simulation and education research networks

Preparedness for Pediatric Office Emergencies: A Multicenter, Simulation-Based Study

OBJECTIVES Pediatric emergencies can occur in pediatric primary care offices. However, few studies have measured emergency preparedness, or the processes of emergency care, provided in the pediatric office setting. In this study, we aimed to measure emergency preparedness and care in a national cohort of pediatric offices. METHODS This was a multicenter study conducted over 15 months. Emergency preparedness scores were calculated as a percentage adherence to 2 checklists on the basis of the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines (essential equipment and supplies and policies and protocols checklists). To measure the quality of emergency care, we recruited office teams for simulation sessions consisting of 2 patients: a child with respiratory distress and a child with a seizure. An unweighted percentage of adherence to checklists for each case was calculated. RESULTS Forty-eight teams from 42 offices across 9 states participated. The mean emergency preparedness score was 74.7% (SD: 12.9). The mean essential equipment and supplies subscore was 82.2% (SD: 15.1), and the mean policies and protocols subscore was 57.1% (SD: 25.6). Multivariable analyses revealed that independent practices and smaller total staff size were associated with lower preparedness. The median asthma case performance score was 63.6% (interquartile range: 43.2–81.2), whereas the median seizure case score was 69.2% (interquartile range: 46.2–80.8). Offices that had a standardized process of contacting emergency medical services (EMS) had a higher rate of activating EMS during the simulations. CONCLUSIONS Pediatric office preparedness remains suboptimal in a multicenter cohort, especially in smaller, independent practices. Academic and community partnerships using simulation can help address gaps and implement important processes like contacting EMS