MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417006002 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2592

Pediatric sickle cell outpatient pain management: A quality improvement initiative

2025· article· en· W4417006002 on OpenAlexaff
Anne L. Harvey, Sara M. Dryden, Katie Gradick, Sarah Schear, Rachel Kupferman, Michele De Leon Juaregui, Menaka Pai, Sasidhar Goteti

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality managementEmergency departmentPDCAPain managementMEDLINEQuality of life (healthcare)Vaso-occlusive crisisPatient satisfactionOutpatient clinic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Primary Children's Hospital (PCH) is a 289-bed tertiary care children's teaching hospital in Utah, caring for approximately 50 patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). Pediatric patients with SCD report frequent experiences of pain yet face barriers to equitable care and adequate pain management. Formal, individualized pain plans have been shown to reduce time to treatment, improve quality of care, and decrease hospital length of stay; they are a promising tool to improve health equity and reduce patient suffering. This quality improvement project aims to improve individualized pain management and caregiver confidence in managing patients with SCD at a single academic hospital, through the implementation of guideline-driven pain plans. Objective: Our objective was to employ the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) quality improvement (QI) methodology to: 1. Create individualized vaso-occlusive (VOC) pain plans for all patients with SCD; 2. Increase calls to clinic to obtain recommendations for pain management by 10% from baseline; 3. Decrease visits to the emergency department (ED) for pain management by 10% from baseline. Methods: An interdisciplinary team of palliative care and hematology providers were assembled to develop national guideline-driven, individualized, comprehensive home pain plans for all patients with SCD at Primary Children's Hospital. We surveyed hematology team members to determine reasons for increased ED utilization for pain episodes, and decreased calls to clinic and visits to the ED to manage pain episodes. A Pareto chart and fishbone diagram of these data identified two key barriers: 1. Lack of individualized home pain plans; and 2. Caregiver awareness of home plan implementation. PDSA Cycle 1 was the implementation of an individualized pain management plan at home. Baseline data was collected on the frequency of calls to the clinic for pain management and ED visits for pain management for each patient over two years before pain plan implementation. PDSA Cycle 2 was a reminder phone call to caregivers of patients who had individualized home pain plans. During the phone call, inquiries were also made about medication requirements and the utility of using the pain plan at home. The outcome measures for PDSA Cycles 1 and 2 were mean calls to clinic per month and mean visits to PCH ED for pain management. QI Macros (KnowWare International) was used for statistical analysis. This work was done under the auspices of the American Society of Hematology's Quality Improvement Training Institute. Results: Between December 2022 and July 2025, the percentage of SCD patients at PCH with individualized pain management plans increased from 0% to 94% (n=46). Using Special Processing Control charts, the mean baseline rate for calls to the clinic was 0.8 per month. After PDSA 1, this remained at 0.8 per month, and after PDSA 2, this increased to 2.7 per month. The baseline rate for ER visits was 2.1 per month. After PDSA cycle 1, the rate decreased to 1.5 per month, and after PDSA cycle 2, the rate decreased to 1.4 per month. 67% of caregivers (n=26) were successfully contacted and surveyed about their awareness and utilization of their child's pain plan during PDSA 2. 62% (n=16) of caregivers surveyed reported they had their child's pain plan, while 38% did not recall an individualized plan. Of those who had experienced pain since their last clinic visit, 63% reported using the pain plan to guide management and found it helpful. Conclusions: Using an interdisciplinary approach and a standard process during routine visits and at hospital discharge, we implemented VOC pain plans in 94% of patients with SCD at our pediatric hospital. An extensive pain plan discussion during clinic visits followed by reminder calls improved our mean calls to the clinic from 0.8 per month to 2.7 per month. Similarly, ED visits decreased from 2.1 per month to 1.4 per month. When used by caregivers, individualized pain plans helped guide patients and caregivers to manage their pain at home. Managing pain at home has the potential to reduce calls to the clinic for guidance, reduce visits to the clinic or ED for pain management, and potentially decrease hospital admissions for patients with SCD. Future expansion of this quality initiative will include implementation of ED pain plans, translation of pain plans into different languages, and incorporation of pain call logs to better capture the nature of each pain episode consistently.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders→French-language works237,207→