Search

Objective: Appendiceal diameter is a primary sonographic determinant of paediatric appendicitis. We sought to determine if the diagnostic performance of outer appendiceal diameter differs based on age or with the addition of secondary sonographic findings., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients aged less than 19 years who presented to the Boston Children's Hospital ED and had an ultrasound (US) for the evaluation of appendicitis between November 2015 and October 2018. Our primary outcome was the presence of appendicitis. We analysed the cases to evaluate the optimal outer appendiceal diameter as a predictor for appendicitis stratified by age (<6, 6 to <11, 11 to <19 years), and with the addition of one or more secondary sonographic findings., Results: Overall, 945 patients met criteria for inclusion, of which 43.9% had appendicitis. Overall, appendiceal diameter as a continuous measure demonstrated excellent test performance across all age groups (area under the curve (AUC) >0.95) but was most predictive of appendicitis in the youngest age group (AUC=0.99 (0.98-1.00)). Although there was no significant difference in optimal diameter threshold between age groups, both 7- and 8-mm thresholds were more predictive than 6 mm across all groups (p<0.001). The addition of individual (particularly appendicolith or echogenic fat) or combinations of secondary sonographic findings increased the diagnostic value for appendicitis above diameter alone., Conclusions: Appendiceal diameter as a continuous measure was more predictive of appendicitis in the youngest group. Across all age groups, the optimal diameter threshold was 7 mm for the diagnosis of paediatric appendicitis. The addition of individual or combination secondary sonographic findings increases diagnostic performance., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Delayed diagnoses of serious emergency conditions can lead to morbidity in children, but are challenging to identify and measure. We developed and piloted an automated tool for identifying delayed diagnosis of two serious conditions commonly seen in the ED using administrative data., Methods: We identified cases with a final diagnosis of appendicitis or sepsis in a freestanding children's hospital from 2008 to 2018, with any hospital ED encounter within the preceding 7 days. Two investigators reviewed a subset of these cases using the electronic health records (EHR) to determine if there was a delayed diagnosis and interrater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). An automated tool was applied to the same cases to assess its positive predictive value (PPV) to identify those with a delayed diagnosis, using the manual chart review as the gold standard. The tool used number of days since visit, presence of a related diagnosis on the initial visit, and whether or not the patient was discharged., Results: Previous ED encounters preceded 91/3703 (2.5%) appendicitis cases and 159/1754 (9.1%) sepsis cases; 78 cases of each were sampled for review. In manual review, 73.4% and 22.8% were thought to have delayed diagnoses; reviewer agreement was excellent (appendicitis ICC 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86 and sepsis ICC 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89). The PPVs of the automated tool for determination of delayed diagnosis for appendicitis within 1, 3 or 7 days were 96.2%, 95.1% and 93.6%, respectively. For sepsis, the PPVs were 71.4%, 63.6% and 41.2% within 1, 3 or 7 days, respectively., Conclusions: This automated tool performed well compared with expert EHR review. Performance was stronger for appendicitis. Further tool refinement could improve performance., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Analysis of 72-hour ED revisits is a common emergency medicine quality assurance (QA) practice. Our aim was to compare the perceived root cause for 72-hour ED revisits between senior physicians (attendings) and trainees. We proposed that discordance in perception of why the revisit occurred would guide improvements in 72-hour revisits QA and elucidate innovative educational opportunities., Methods: Questionnaire-based observational study conducted in an urban academic paediatric ED. Treating attendings and trainees independently completed questionnaires on revisit cases. The primary outcome was the revisit's perceived root cause, dichotomised into 'potential medical deficiency' or 'not potential medical deficiency'. Discordance between provider pairs was measured, stratified by revisit disposition., Results: During the study period, 31 630 patients were treated in the ED, 559 returned within 72 hours and 218 met inclusion criteria for paired analysis. The proportion of cases assigned 'potential medical deficiency' by the attending and trainee was 13% and 9%, respectively. Discordance in the dichotomised root cause between attendings and trainees was 17% (38/218, 95% CI 12% to 22%). Revisit cases requiring admission revealed attending-trainee discordance of 25% (23/92, 95% CI 16% to 34%)., Conclusions: Attendings and trainees frequently disagree on whether a potential medical deficiency was the root cause for an ED revisit, with more disagreement noted for cases requiring admission. These findings support the premise that there may be opportunities to improve 72-hour revisits QA systems through trainee integration. Finally, reuniting attending-trainee pairs around revisit cases may be a novel educational opportunity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: The presence of critically ill patients may impact care for other ED patients. We sought to evaluate whether the presence of a critically ill child was associated with the time to (1) receipt of the first medication among other patients, and (2) administration of diagnosis-specific medications., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all paediatric ED visits over 3 years. Patients were exposed if they arrived during the first hour of a critically ill patient's care. The primary outcome was the time from arrival to first medication administration. Secondary outcomes were time to corticosteroids in asthma and time to antibiotics for fever/neutropenia. We modelled times to medication using median regression, adjusting for demographics, arrival time and weekday, and census (number of patients in the ED)., Results: We analysed 170 112 visits. Median times to first medication for those exposed to 0, 1 and >1 simultaneous critically ill patients were 90 min (IQR 54-146), 96 min (IQR 58-157) and 113 min (IQR 72-166), respectively (p<0.001). The increase in time to corticosteroids among exposed patients versus unexposed was 6 min (IQR 2-14, p=0.11) and in time to antibiotic for fever/neutropenia was -4 min (IQR -4 to -11, p=0.13). Modelled time to first medication increased 3.1 min (95% CI 0.5 to 5.7) among all exposed patients (p=0.02). Time to first medication increased 15.3 min (95% CI 14.7 to 15.9) for each 10 patient increase in census., Conclusions: The presence of critically ill patients was associated with a delay in medication administration to others. Census independently predicted medication delays., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)