6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Emergency Department Pediatric Readiness and Short-term and Long-term Mortality Among Children Receiving Emergency Care

      research-article
      , MD, MPH 1 , , , MS 1 , , MS 1 , , GCPH 1 , , MPH 2 , , MD, MPH 3 , 4 , , MD 5 , 6 , , MD 7 , , PhD 8 , , MD, PhD 9 , , MD 2 , , MS 1 , , PhD 1 , , MD, MS 2 , , MD, MSc 10 , , MD, MS 11 , 12 , 13 , , MD, MCR 1 , , MD 14 , , MD, PhD 15 , , PhD 1 , 16 , , MS 2 , , MD, MS 17 , , MPH 18 , , PhD 19 , 20 , , MS 1 , , MD 5 , 6 , , PhD, MS 2
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is high emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness (6 domains of preparedness) associated with lower short-term and long-term mortality among children?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 796 937 children cared for in 983 EDs, there was 60% to 76% lower odds of in-hospital death associated with care in high-readiness EDs; among a subset of 545 921 children followed up beyond hospitalization, the benefit of high-readiness EDs persisted to 1 year. If all these EDs had high pediatric readiness, an estimated 1442 pediatric deaths may have been prevented.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that care in EDs with high pediatric readiness is associated with lower short-term and long-term mortality among children.

          Abstract

          This cohort study evaluates the association between emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness, in-hospital mortality, and 1-year mortality among injured and medically ill children receiving emergency care in 11 states.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Emergency departments (EDs) with high pediatric readiness (coordination, personnel, quality improvement, safety, policies, and equipment) are associated with lower mortality among children with critical illness and those admitted to trauma centers, but the benefit among children with more diverse clinical conditions is unknown.

          Objective

          To evaluate the association between ED pediatric readiness, in-hospital mortality, and 1-year mortality among injured and medically ill children receiving emergency care in 11 states.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This is a retrospective cohort study of children receiving emergency care at 983 EDs in 11 states from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, with follow-up for a subset of children through December 31, 2018. Participants included children younger than 18 years admitted, transferred to another hospital, or dying in the ED, stratified by injury vs medical conditions. Data analysis was performed from November 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022.

          Exposure

          ED pediatric readiness of the initial ED, measured through the weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (wPRS; range, 0-100) from the 2013 National Pediatric Readiness Project assessment.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with a secondary outcome of time to death to 1 year among children in 6 states.

          Results

          There were 796 937 children, including 90 963 (11.4%) in the injury cohort (mean [SD] age, 9.3 [5.8] years; median [IQR] age, 10 [4-15] years; 33 516 [36.8%] female; 1820 [2.0%] deaths) and 705 974 (88.6%) in the medical cohort (mean [SD] age, 5.8 [6.1] years; median [IQR] age, 3 [0-12] years; 329 829 [46.7%] female, 7688 [1.1%] deaths). Among the 983 EDs, the median (IQR) wPRS was 73 (59-87). Compared with EDs in the lowest quartile of ED readiness (quartile 1, wPRS of 0-58), initial care in a quartile 4 ED (wPRS of 88-100) was associated with 60% lower in-hospital mortality among injured children (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.60) and 76% lower mortality among medical children (adjusted odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.17-0.34). Among 545 921 children followed to 1 year, the adjusted hazard ratio of death in quartile 4 EDs was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42-0.84) for injured children and 0.34 (95% CI, 0.25-0.45) for medical children. If all EDs were in the highest quartile of pediatric readiness, an estimated 288 injury deaths (95% CI, 281-297 injury deaths) and 1154 medical deaths (95% CI, 1150-1159 medical deaths) may have been prevented.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          These findings suggest that children with injuries and medical conditions treated in EDs with high pediatric readiness had lower mortality during hospitalization and to 1 year.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

          Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification.

              The goal of multiple imputation is to provide valid inferences for statistical estimates from incomplete data. To achieve that goal, imputed values should preserve the structure in the data, as well as the uncertainty about this structure, and include any knowledge about the process that generated the missing data. Two approaches for imputing multivariate data exist: joint modeling (JM) and fully conditional specification (FCS). JM is based on parametric statistical theory, and leads to imputation procedures whose statistical properties are known. JM is theoretically sound, but the joint model may lack flexibility needed to represent typical data features, potentially leading to bias. FCS is a semi-parametric and flexible alternative that specifies the multivariate model by a series of conditional models, one for each incomplete variable. FCS provides tremendous flexibility and is easy to apply, but its statistical properties are difficult to establish. Simulation work shows that FCS behaves very well in the cases studied. The present paper reviews and compares the approaches. JM and FCS were applied to pubertal development data of 3801 Dutch girls that had missing data on menarche (two categories), breast development (five categories) and pubic hair development (six stages). Imputations for these data were created under two models: a multivariate normal model with rounding and a conditionally specified discrete model. The JM approach introduced biases in the reference curves, whereas FCS did not. The paper concludes that FCS is a useful and easily applied flexible alternative to JM when no convenient and realistic joint distribution can be specified.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                13 January 2023
                January 2023
                13 January 2023
                : 6
                : 1
                : e2250941
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
                [2 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City
                [3 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento
                [4 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento
                [5 ]Department of Pediatric, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin
                [6 ]Department of Surgery, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin
                [7 ]Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California
                [8 ]Centers for Health Policy, Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
                [9 ]Division of Trauma and Burn Surgery, Department of Surgery, Children’s National Hospital, Washington, DC
                [10 ]Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis
                [11 ]Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                [12 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                [13 ]Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
                [14 ]Department of Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark
                [15 ]Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [16 ]Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
                [17 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
                [18 ]Oregon Emergency Medical Services for Children Program, Oregon Health Authority, Portland
                [19 ]Department of Anesthesia, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [20 ]Department of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: November 9, 2022.
                Published: January 13, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50941
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Newgard CD et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Craig D. Newgard, MD, MPH, Department of Emergency Medicine, Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Mail Code CR-114, Portland, OR 97239-3098 ( newgardc@ 123456ohsu.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Newgard had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Newgard, Cook, Kuppermann, Remick, Gausche-Hill, Jenkins, Carr, Ford, Lang.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Newgard, Lin, Malveau, Cook, Smith, Kuppermann, Goldhaber-Fiebert, Burd, Hewes, Salvi, Xin, Ames, Marin, Hansen, Glass, Nathens, McConnell, Dai, Yanez, Babcock, Mann.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Newgard, Lin, Remick, Salvi, Marin, Ford, Yanez, Babcock.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Newgard, Lin, Malveau, Cook, Smith, Kuppermann, Remick, Gausche-Hill, Goldhaber-Fiebert, Burd, Hewes, Xin, Ames, Jenkins, Hansen, Glass, Nathens, McConnell, Dai, Carr, Yanez, Lang, Mann.
                Statistical analysis: Newgard, Lin, Smith, Salvi, Xin, Ames, McConnell, Dai, Yanez, Mann.
                Obtained funding: Newgard, Remick.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Newgard, Malveau, Cook, Kuppermann, Hansen, Nathens, Ford, Mann.
                Supervision: Newgard, Cook, Remick, Gausche-Hill.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Newgard reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) outside the submitted work. Ms Cook reported receiving grants from the NICHD and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute outside the submitted work. Dr Kuppermann reported receiving grants from the NIH, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr Remick reported receiving a grant from HRSA outside the submitted work. Dr Hewes reported receiving a grant from HRSA outside the submitted work. Dr McConnell reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This project was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD (grant R24 HD085927) and the US Department of Health and Human Services HRSA (Emergency Medical Services for Children Targeted Issue Grant, grant H34MC33243-01-01).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Group Information: A complete list of the member of the Pediatric Readiness Study Group appears in Supplement 2.
                Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of these organizations.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.
                Additional Contributions: We would like to acknowledge and thank the departments of health, agencies, offices, and divisions of the following states for their help and collaboration with this project: Arizona (Arizona Department of Health Services, Human Subjects Review Board and Bureau of Public Health Services); California (State of California Health and Human Services Agency, Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects and Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and California Department of Public Health, Health Information and Research Section); Florida (Agency for Health Care Administration, Florida Center for Health Information and Transparency, Bureau of Vital Statistics at the Florida Department of Health); Iowa (Iowa Hospital Association, Iowa Department of Public Health); Maryland (hMetrix, Maryland Department of Health, Vital Statistics Administration); Minnesota (Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project); New Jersey (Rowan University Institutional Review Board, State of New Jersey Department of Health); New York (New York Department of Health Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, Bureau of Production Systems Management, and Institutional Review Board; New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene); North Carolina (Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research; North Carolina State Center for health Statistics); Rhode Island (Rhode Island Department of Health, Institutional Review Board, and Center for Health Data & Analysis); and Wisconsin (Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project).
                Article
                zoi221449
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.50941
                9857584
                36637819
                f8778aa3-a125-4dea-b0e6-c380c3e0942f
                Copyright 2023 Newgard CD et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 25 July 2022
                : 9 November 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Emergency Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article