Medication-Related Emergency Department Visits in Pediatrics: a Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There are few data on the rate and characterization of medication-related visits (MRVs) to the emergency department (ED) in pediatric patients. We sought to evaluate the frequency, severity, preventability, and classification of MRVs to the ED in pediatric patients. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study of pediatric patients presenting to the ED over a 12-month period. A medication-related ED visit was identified by using pharmacist assessment, emergency physician assessment, and an independent adjudication committee. RESULTS: In this study, 2028 patients were enrolled (mean age, 6.1 ± 5.0 years; girls, 47.4%). An MRV was found in 163 patients (8.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.0%-9.3%) of which 106 (65.0%; 95% CI: 57.2%-72.3%) were deemed preventable. Severity was classified as mild in 14 cases (8.6%; 95% CI: 4.8%-14.0%), moderate in 140 cases (85.9%; 95% CI: 79.6%-90.8%), and severe in 9 cases (5.5%; 95% CI: 2.6%-10.2%). The most common events were related to adverse drug reactions 26.4% (95% CI: 19.8%-33.8%), subtherapeutic dosage 19.0% (95% CI: 13.3%-25.9%), and nonadherence 17.2% (95% CI: 11.7%-23.9%). The probability of hospital admission was significantly higher among patients with an MRV compared with those without an MRV (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% CI: 4.3-9.6) and, if admitted, the median (interquartile range) length of stay was longer (3.0 [5.0] days vs 1.5 [2.5] days, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: A medication-related cause was found in ∼1 of every 12 ED visits by pediatric patients, of which two-thirds were deemed preventable. Pediatric patients who present to the ED with an MRV are more likely to be admitted to hospital and when admitted have a longer length of stay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".