Search

Objective: To assess sex differences in presentation and management of febrile children with respiratory symptoms attending European Emergency Departments., Design and Setting: An observational study in twelve Emergency Departments in eight European countries., Patients: Previously healthy children aged 0-<18 years with fever (≥ 38°C) at the Emergency Department or in the consecutive three days before Emergency Department visit and respiratory symptoms were included., Main Outcome Measures: The main outcomes were patient characteristics and management defined as diagnostic tests, treatment and admission. Descriptive statistics were used for patient characteristics and management stratified by sex. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed for the association between sex and management with adjustment for age, disease severity and Emergency Department. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed in children with upper and lower respiratory tract infections and in children below five years., Results: We included 19,781 febrile children with respiratory symptoms. The majority were boys (54%), aged 1-5 years (58%) and triaged as low urgent (67%). Girls presented less frequently with tachypnea (15% vs 16%, p = 0.002) and increased work of breathing (8% vs 12%, p<0.001) compared with boys. Girls received less inhalation medication than boys (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.90), but received antibiotic treatment more frequently than boys (aOR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.15), which is associated with a higher prevalence of urinary tract infections. Amongst children with a lower respiratory tract infection and children below five years girls received less inhalation medication than boys (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.89; aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.90)., Conclusions: Sex differences concerning presentation and management are present in previously healthy febrile children with respiratory symptoms presenting to the Emergency Department. Future research should focus on whether these differences are related to clinicians' attitudes, differences in clinical symptoms at the time of presentation and disease severity., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Among pediatric emergency department (ED) visits, a subgroup of children repeatedly visits the ED, making them frequent visitors (FVs). The aim of this study is to get insight into the group of pediatric ED FVs and to determine risk factors associated with a revisit., Methods and Findings: Data of all children aged 0-18 years visiting the ED of a university hospital in the Netherlands between 2017 and 2020 were included in this observational study based on routine data extraction. Children with 4 or more ED visits within 365 days were classified as FVs. Descriptive analysis of the study cohort at patient- and visit-level were performed. Risk factors for a recurrent ED visit were determined using a Prentice Williams and Peterson gap time cox-based model. Our study population of 10,209 children with 16,397 ED visits contained 500 FVs (4.9%) accounting for 3,481 visits (21.2%). At patient-level, FVs were younger and more often suffered from chronic diseases (CDs). At visit-level, frequent visits were more often initiated by self-referral and were more often related to medical problems (compared to trauma's). Overall, FVs presented at the ED more often because of an infection (41.3%) compared to non-FVs (27.4%), either associated or not with the body system affected by the CD. We identified the presence of a comorbidity (non-complex CD HR 1.66; 1.52-1.81 and complex CD HR 2.00; 1.84-2.16) as determinants with the highest hazard for a return visit., Conclusion: Pediatric ED FVs are a small group of children but account for a large amount of the total ED visits. FVs are younger patients, suffering from (complex) comorbidities and present more often with infectious conditions compared to non-FVs. Healthcare pathways, including safety-netting strategies for acute manifestations from their comorbidity, or for infectious conditions in general may contribute to support parents and redirect some patients from the ED., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: To develop a clinical prediction model to identify children at risk for revisits with serious illness to the emergency department., Methods and Findings: A secondary analysis of a prospective multicentre observational study in five European EDs (the TRIAGE study), including consecutive children aged <16 years who were discharged following their initial ED visit ('index' visit), in 2012-2015. Standardised data on patient characteristics, Manchester Triage System urgency classification, vital signs, clinical interventions and procedures were collected. The outcome measure was serious illness defined as hospital admission or PICU admission or death in ED after an unplanned revisit within 7 days of the index visit. Prediction models were developed using multivariable logistic regression using characteristics of the index visit to predict the likelihood of a revisit with a serious illness. The clinical model included day and time of presentation, season, age, gender, presenting problem, triage urgency, and vital signs. An extended model added laboratory investigations, imaging, and intravenous medications. Cross validation between the five sites was performed, and discrimination and calibration were assessed using random effects models. A digital calculator was constructed for clinical implementation. 7,891 children out of 98,561 children had a revisit to the ED (8.0%), of whom 1,026 children (1.0%) returned to the ED with a serious illness. Rates of revisits with serious illness varied between the hospitals (range 0.7-2.2%). The clinical model had a summary Area under the operating curve (AUC) of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.74) and summary calibration slope of 0.83 (95% CI 0.67-0.99). 4,433 children (5%) had a risk of > = 3%, which was useful for ruling in a revisit with serious illness, with positive likelihood ratio 4.41 (95% CI 3.87-5.01) and specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.96). 37,546 (39%) had a risk <0.5%, which was useful for ruling out a revisit with serious illness (negative likelihood ratio 0.30 (95% CI 0.25-0.35), sensitivity 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.90)). The extended model had an improved summary AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.75) and summary calibration slope of 0.84 (95% CI 0.71-0.97). As study limitations, variables on ethnicity and social deprivation could not be included, and only return visits to the original hospital and not to those of surrounding hospitals were recorded., Conclusion: We developed a prediction model and a digital calculator which can aid physicians identifying those children at highest and lowest risks for developing a serious illness after initial discharge from the ED, allowing for more targeted safety netting advice and follow-up., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: Our aim was to describe variability in resource use and hospitalization in children presenting with shortness of breath to different European Emergency Departments (EDs) and to explore possible explanations for variability., Design: The TrIAGE project, a prospective observational study based on electronic health record data., Patients and Setting: Consecutive paediatric emergency department visits for shortness of breath in five European hospitals in four countries (Austria, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom) during a study period of 9-36 months (2012-2014)., Main Outcome Measures: We assessed diversity between EDs regarding resource use (diagnostic tests, therapy) and hospital admission using multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusting for potential confounding variables., Results: In total, 13,552 children were included. Of those, 7,379 were categorized as immediate/very urgent, ranging from 13-80% in the participating hospitals. Laboratory tests and X-rays were performed in 8-33% of the cases and 21-61% was treated with inhalation medication. Admission rates varied between 8-47% and PICU admission rates varied between 0.1-9%. Patient characteristics and markers of disease severity (age, sex, comorbidity, urgency, vital signs) could explain part of the observed variability in resource use and hospitalization. However, after adjusting for these characteristics, we still observed substantial variability between settings., Conclusion: European EDs differ substantially regarding the resource use and hospitalization in children with shortness of breath, even when adjusting for patient characteristics. Possible explanations for this variability might be unmeasured patient characteristics such as underlying disease, differences in guideline use and adherence or different local practice patterns., Competing Interests: The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Vital signs are used in emergency care settings in the first assessment of children to identify those that need immediate attention. We aimed to develop and validate vital sign based Manchester Triage System (MTS) discriminators to improve triage of children at the emergency department., Methods and Findings: The TrIAGE project is a prospective observational study based on electronic health record data from five European EDs (Netherlands (n = 2), United Kingdom, Austria, and Portugal). In the current study, we included 117,438 consecutive children <16 years presenting to the ED during the study period (2012-2015). We derived new discriminators based on heart rate, respiratory rate, and/or capillary refill time for specific subgroups of MTS flowcharts. Moreover, we determined the optimal cut-off value for each vital sign. The main outcome measure was a previously developed 3-category reference standard (high, intermediate, low urgency) for the required urgency of care, based on mortality at the ED, immediate lifesaving interventions, disposition and resource use. We determined six new discriminators for children <1 year and ≥1 year: "Very abnormal respiratory rate", "Abnormal heart rate", and "Abnormal respiratory rate", with optimal cut-offs, and specific subgroups of flowcharts. Application of the modified MTS reclassified 744 patients (2.5%). Sensitivity increased from 0.66 (95%CI 0.60-0.72) to 0.71 (0.66-0.75) for high urgency patients and from 0.67 (0.54-0.76) to 0.70 (0.58-0.80) for high and intermediate urgency patients. Specificity decreased from 0.90 (0.86-0.93) to 0.89 (0.85-0.92) for high and 0.66 (0.52-0.78) to 0.63 (0.50-0.75) for high and intermediate urgency patients. These differences were statistically significant. Overall performance improved (R2 0.199 versus 0.204)., Conclusions: Six new discriminators based on vital signs lead to a small but relevant increase in performance and should be implemented in the MTS., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives: To determine the validity of the Manchester Triage System (MTS) in emergency care for the general population of patients attending the emergency department, for children and elderly, and for commonly used MTS flowcharts and discriminators across three different emergency care settings., Methods: This was a prospective observational study in three European emergency departments. All consecutive patients attending the emergency department during a 1-year study period (2010-2012) were included. Validity of the MTS was assessed by comparing MTS urgency as determined by triage nurses with patient urgency according to a predefined 3-category reference standard as proxy for true patient urgency., Results: 288,663 patients were included in the analysis. Sensitivity of the MTS in the three hospitals ranged from 0.47 (95%CI 0.44-0.49) to 0.87 (95%CI 0.85-0.90), and specificity from 0.84 (95%CI 0.84-0.84) to 0.94 (95%CI 0.94-0.94) for the triage of adult patients. In children, sensitivity ranged from 0.65 (95%CI 0.61-0.70) to 0.83 (95%CI 0.79-0.87), and specificity from 0.83 (95%CI 0.82-0.83) to 0.89 (95%CI 0.88-0.90). The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 13.5 (95%CI 12.1-15.0) to 35.3 (95%CI 28.4-43.9) in adults and from 9.8 (95%CI 6.7-14.5) to 23.8 (95%CI 17.7-32.0) in children, and was lowest in the youngest patients in 2 out of 3 settings and in the oldest patients in all settings. Performance varied considerably between the different emergency departments., Conclusions: Validity of the MTS in emergency care is moderate to good, with lowest performance in the young and elderly patients. Future studies on the validity of triage systems should be restricted to large, multicenter studies to define modifications and improve generalizability of the findings., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.