MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pediatric Emergency Department Adherence to the 2014 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Guidelines Targeting Analgesic Therapy in the Management of Vaso-Occlusive Pain Episodes in Children with Sickle Cell Disease: a Multicenter Perspective

2016· article· en· W2620176398 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claudia R. Morris, Fahd A. Ahmad, Jonathan E. Bennett, Seema Bhatt, Amanda Bogie, Kathleen Brown, T. Charles Casper, Laura L. Chapman, Corrie E. Chumpitazi, Daniel M. Cohen, Carlton Dampier, Angela M. Ellison, Hartmut Grasemann, Robert W. Hickey, Lewis L. Hsu, Peter A. Lane, Sara Leibovich, Prahbumallikarjum Patil, Elizabeth C. Powell, Rachel Richards, Syana Sarnaik, Debra L. Weiner, David C. Brousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentTriageVaso-occlusive crisisAcute chest syndromeDosingGuidelineEmergency medicinePain assessmentHydromorphoneOpioidSickle cell anemiaPhysical therapyDiseasePain managementInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Pain is the leading cause of hospitalization and pediatric emergency department (PED) visits for children with sickle cell disease (SCD). The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) recommends rapid evaluation and treatment of moderate-severe vaso-occlusive pain episodes (VOEs) in the acute care setting, with timely pain assessments and repeat analgesia delivery to control pain. Quality-of-care indicators for children with SCD include the receipt of parenteral analgesia within 30 minutes of triage or 60 minutes of registration, with frequent pain reassessments and re-dosing of opioids within 30 minutes. Objective: To assess adherence to the 2014 NHLBI guideline for VOE management with respect to time to 1st and 2ndparenteral opioid delivery and time to pain assessment and its reassessment frequency in PEDs across the United States and Canada. Methods: A retrospective chart review evaluated 20 consecutive charts per site from 20 high-volume PEDs (n=400 charts total) including 14 Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) sites, assessing children age 3-21 years with SCD/VOE receiving parenteral opioids. Time from arrival and triage/room placement (whichever came first) to 1st and 2ndparenteral opioid administration, and time to pain assessment and reassessment were assessed. Adoption of bedside registration after triage/room placement at many sites decreased the relevance of a 60-minute window from registration; we therefore focused on triage time/room placement and arrival time to determine our quality outcome measures. Results: Annual SCD/VOE volume based on ICD-9 code discharge diagnosis for the 20 PED sites combined was 6082 visits, with an admission rate of 66%. Overall admission rate for the 400 patient chart review was 67%. Mean age of the chart review cohort was 14±5 years, 54% were female, and the majority (92%) had HbSS. Median (IQR) time from arrival to room placement was 4 (0, 10) minutes, while median time from triage/rooming to intravenous (IV) catheter placement was 46 (28, 76) minutes. Median time from triage/room placement to 1st parenteral opioid was 56 (32, 94) minutes; 24% within 30 min, 28% 31-60 min, and 48% >60 min. A total of 46% of patients received parenteral opioids within 60 minutes of ED arrival time. Analysis of children who received two or more opioid doses revealed that only 17% received a 2nd parenteral opioid dose within 30 minutes of their 1st dose. Only 17% of the cohort received both their 1st dose within 30 minutes of triage and 2nd parenteral opioid within 30 minutes of the first. Mean total number of parenteral opioid doses given while in the PED (min-max) was 2.4 (1-13), over a median (IQR) of 5 hours (4, 7) spent in the PED prior to disposition home or to the inpatient ward. Of admitted patients (n=268), 18% received only a single dose of parenteral opioids while in the PED, 30% received 2 doses and 52% received 3 or more doses. Pain assessment scores were documented in 99% of charts, within a median of 3 minutes (0, 12) of triage/rooming, and 89% had documentation of pain reassessment, occurring within a median of 27 minutes (10.0, 52.0) of 1stparenteral opioid delivery. The mean number of pain assessments documented during the PED stay was 5±2. Conclusions:Delays in pain management for children with SCD commonly occur across PEDs, despite NHLBI recommendations for rapid evaluation and treatment of VOEs in the acute care setting. Only a minority of children received rapid parenteral opioid administration defined by the 2014 NIH guidelines, although pain assessment is often performed immediately and with frequent reassessments. Although the majority of patients are rapidly triaged and placed in rooms, children commonly wait 45 minutes or longer for IV placement, which could contribute to delays in delivery of parenteral opioids. This data help identify areas for quality improvement that can be targeted to improve patient care in the future. Disclosures Morris: Nourish Life: Patents & Royalties: I am inventor of IP owned by UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, Licenced to Nourish Life; Nestle: Honoraria; Calithera: Consultancy; Endeavor: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; MAST: Research Funding. Dampier:Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hsu:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hilton Publishing: Consultancy, Research Funding; EMMI Solutions: Consultancy; Purdue Pharma: Research Funding; Gerson Lehman Group: Consultancy; Mast Therapeutics: Research Funding; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sancilio: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207