12 Children with Bronchiolitis admitted to a Community Hospital Emergency Department: A Retrospective Chart Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of infant hospitalization worldwide and affects more than one-third of children, 0 to 2 years old. Despite the common nature of bronchiolitis, and the availability of clinical practice guidelines, there is wide variation in the clinical management, and how it is diagnosed and treated. Utilization of unnecessary investigations and ineffective medication and interventions for the management of bronchiolitis have been costly for the health care system and reflect significant morbidity and burden for families. Studies have shown that AAP guidelines have decreased the use of diagnostics and medications (bronchodilators, steroids, antibiotics) for children with bronchiolitis in tertiary care centers however there is a low uptake of AAP bronchiolitis recommendations in smaller community hospitals which highlight the challenges in changing clinical behaviour and culture in these centers. Bronchiolitis is a leading cause of infant hospitalization with wide variation in its diagnosis and management, especially in smaller community hospitals. The objective of this study is to describe children admitted to a community-based hospital emergency department (ED) for bronchiolitis and its management. This retrospective chart review took place at a community-based hospital (Lakeridge) in Ontario. Study was approved by the research ethics boards of Lakeridge Health and University of Ontario Institute of Technology. The medical charts of children who visited Lakeridge Health EDs (Oshawa, Bowmanville and Port Perry sites) between January 1 to September 30, 2015 were identified. Outcomes included demographic information, admission and discharge date, reason for admission, ED disposition, presenting and ongoing symptoms, chest x-rays (CXRs) and interventions. The RDAI at Lakeridge Health is not directly assessed therefore total RDAI score was calculated using documented assessments. Patient characteristics and variables were described using means and standard deviations (SD), counts and proportions. Chi-square tests (proportions) and independent t-test (continuous variables) were used to compare children who had a CXR versus those who did not; provided oral antibiotics versus those who did not; and admitted to hospital or discharged home. A p<0.05 was considered significant. A p<0.05 was considered significant. The mean (SD) age of the 100 children was 10.6 (8.4) months, with n=41 (41%) females. The primary reason for admission was respiratory distress (38%).67 % had a CXR done. 17% were given oral antibiotics, 65% inhaled bronchodilators, 19% oral steroids, and 16% supplemental oxygen. More children had moderate to severe respiratory distress 43% while 23% had mild distress 34% were not reported in the chart. The majority of children (81%) were discharged home with the balance admitted (maximum length of stay of 6 days).The mean (SD) total calculated RDAI score was 4.98 (2.43); range 0 to 11.There was a significant difference in total calculated RDAI score between those given oral antibiotics (mean [95% confidence interval], 6.35 [4.96 to 7.75]) versus not given oral antibiotics (4.70 [4.20 to 5.20]), p=0.01.Those who received CXR had a significantly higher supplemental oxygen flowrate (1.4 [0.6–2.1] litres per minute (lpm)) versus those who did not (0.15 [-0.05–0.35] lpm), p=0.002.There was a significant difference in the physical appearance on admission (p=0.04): more children who did not receive CXR were calm and normal (88%) versus the CXR group (58%); and more children in the CXR group were in the tri-pod position (12%) or head bobbing (19%) versus those who were not (3% and 9% respectively). A large number of children admitted to a community based ED for bronchiolitis received unnecessary CXR, bronchodilators and steroids. Development of institutional or health-region specific clinical practice guidelines that considers local culture, and includes collaboration with all stakeholders, may aid in the optimal diagnosis and treatment of bronchiolitis for community-based EDs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».