Human-centered design (HCD) is rooted in building trust with end users by developing empathetic understanding of key partners’ needs, continuous engagement, and iterative solution creation and refinement. One of the core tenets of HCD in health care is that consistent end-user engagement will result in better health outcomes. Children with medical complexity (CMC), a subset of children and youth with special health care needs, are characterized by multiple chronic health care conditions and high health care use, including emergency department visits. To address the known challenges with providing high-quality care for CMC in emergency settings, emergency information forms are currently recommended to provide insights into existing health complexities at the point of care. However, these forms have faced significant implementation challenges that lead to limited stakeholder buy-in and lack of incorporation into current emergency care workflows. We present HCD as a strategy to aid in the creation and optimization of an emergency care action plan (ECAP) for CMC. The objectives of this communication are, therefore, as follows: (1) to demonstrate HCD as an accessible approach to delineate and address pediatric care challenges within a complex health care system and (2) to illustrate a commonly used HCD methodological approach to address implementation challenges of an emergency care planning tool through the creation of an ECAP for CMC.
Objective: Between 20% and 80% of emergency department (ED) visits are nonurgent. This variability in estimates is partially due to the multiple classification methods used, none of which has undergone validity or reliability testing. Our objectives were to determine the methods thought to be most valid and to understand expert perceptions of nonurgent ED utilization. Methods: A survey of the Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) Special Interest Group at the 2005 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting was conducted. An education session with case-based discussion for categorizing ED visit urgency was presented. Six methods were reviewed: implicit criteria, explicit criteria, resource utilization, diagnoses, Current Procedural Terminology Codes, and nurse triage category. The primary outcome was the percentage of respondents ranking each method first or second best for categorizing urgency. Respondents also identified ED resources and presenting symptoms constituting an urgent visit. Results: Seventy-four percent of attendees completed the survey, most were Pediatric Emergency Medicine physicians. Implicit criteria were rated highest, with 65.1% ranking it first or second, followed by explicit criteria (53.8%). With limited data available, resource utilization ranked highest (68.6%), followed by nurse triage (61.2%). There was an agreement that certain presenting symptoms and resources were adequate for determining ED visit urgency; however, there was no agreement on whether x-rays, urinalyses, or fever in a child older than 3 months was sufficient to identify urgency. Conclusions: Methods using complete medical record information are favored to determine ED visit urgency. Resource utilization and nurse triage are preferred when limited data are available. This survey will serve as the basis for endorsement of methodologically sound criteria for ED visit urgency.
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Abstract Objectives Adolescents frequently use the emergency department (ED) to meet their health care needs, and many use the ED as their primary source of care. The ED is therefore well situated to provide preventive health care to large numbers of adolescents. The objective of this multicenter qualitative analysis was to identify factors that influence the implementation of preventive health care interventions for adolescent patients in the ED. Methods We conducted semistructured interviews with ED health care providers (HCPs) from five academic pediatric EDs in distinct geographic regions. We developed an interview guide to explore HCP attitudes and beliefs related to implementing preventive health interventions in the ED. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded by three investigators. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used as a guide to code and analyze interview data. We collaboratively generated themes that represent factors that are perceived to facilitate the implementation of preventive health interventions for adolescent patients in the ED setting. Results We conducted 38 interviews (18 pediatric emergency medicine attendings/fellows, 11 registered nurses, five nurse practitioners, or and four physician assistants). We generated 10 themes across the five CFIR domains: innovation characteristics (designing interventions to promote adolescent engagement), inner setting (integrating interventions into ED workflow and scope, minimizing provider burden), outer setting (involving the community, aligning with departmental and institutional missions), individuals (identifying champions), and implementation process (involving key stakeholders early, having patience, and targeting all patients to reduce stigma). Conclusions Factors facilitating implementation of preventive health interventions for adolescent patients in the ED encompassed multiple CFIR domains, elucidating how the delivery of preventive health interventions for this patient population in the ED requires considering numerous factors comprehensively. These data suggest methods to enhance and facilitate implementation of preventive health interventions for adolescents in the ED.
Intubation in critically ill pediatric patients is associated with approximately 20% rate of adverse events, but rates in the high-risk condition of sepsis are unknown. Our objectives were to describe the frequency and characteristics of tracheal intubation adverse events in pediatric sepsis.Retrospective cohort study of a sepsis registry.Two tertiary care academic emergency departments and four affiliated urgent cares within a single children's hospital health system.Children 60 days and older to 18 years and younger who required nonelective intubation within 24 hours of emergency department arrival. Exclusion criteria included elective intubation, intubation prior to emergency department arrival, presence of tracheostomy, or missing intubation chart data.Not applicable.The outcome was tracheal intubation adverse event as defined by the National Emergency Airway Registry Tool 4 KIDS. During the study period, 118 of 2,395 registry patients met inclusion criteria; 100% of intubations were successful. First attempt success rate was 57% (95% CI, 48-65%); 59% were intubated in the emergency department, and 28% were intubated in the PICU. First attempts were by a resident (30%), a fellow (42%), attending (6%), and anesthesiologist (13%). Tracheal intubation adverse events were reported in 61 (43%; 95% 43-61%) intubations with severe tracheal intubation adverse events in 22 (17%; 95 CI, 13-27%) intubations. Hypotension was the most common severe event (n = 20 [17%]) with 14 novel occurrences during intubation. Mainstem bronchial intubation was the most common nonsevere event (n = 28 [24%]). Residents, advanced practice providers, and general pediatricians in urgent care settings had the lowest rates of first-pass success.The rates of tracheal intubation adverse events in this study are higher than in nonelective pediatric intubations in all conditions and highlight the high-risk nature of intubations in pediatric sepsis. Further research is needed to identify optimal practices for intubation in pediatric sepsis.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Nationally, frequent utilizers of emergency departments (EDs) are targeted for quality improvement initiatives. The objective was to compare the characteristics and ED health services of children by their ED visit frequency. METHODS: A retrospective study in 1 896 547 children aged 0 to 18 years with 3 263 330 visits to 37 EDs in 2011. The number of ED visits per child within 365 days of their first visit was counted. Patient characteristics (age, chronic condition) and ED care (medications, testing [laboratory and radiographic], and hospital admission) were assessed. We evaluated the relationship between patient characteristics and ED health services received with multivariable regression. RESULTS: Children with ≥4 ED visits (8%) accounted for 24% of all visits and 31% ($1.4 billion) of all costs. As visit frequency increased from 1 to ≥4, the percentage of children aged <1 year increased (12.1% to 33.2%) and the percentage of children without a chronic condition decreased (81.9% to 45.6%) (P < .001 for both). Children with ≥4 ED visits had a higher percentage of visits without medication administration (aside from acetaminophen or ibuprofen), testing, or hospital admission when compared with children with 1 visit (35.4% vs 29.0%; P < .001). Children with ≥4 ED visits who were aged <1 year (odds ratio: 3.8; 95% confidence interval: 3.7–3.9) and who were without a chronic condition (odds ratio: 3.1; 95% confidence interval: 3.0–3.1) had the highest likelihood of experiencing this type of visit. CONCLUSIONS: With a disproportionate share of pediatric ED cost and utilization, frequent utilizers, especially infants without a chronic condition, are the least likely to need medications, testing, and hospital admission.
