Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of direct admission and admission through emergency departments for children: a randomized stepped wedge study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Approximately 2 million children are hospitalized each year in the United States, with more than three-quarters of non-elective hospitalizations admitted through emergency departments (EDs). Direct admission, defined as admission to hospital without first receiving care in the hospital's ED, may offer benefits for patients and healthcare systems in quality, timeliness, and experience of care. While ED utilization patterns are well studied, there is a paucity of research comparing the effectiveness of direct and ED admissions. The overall aim of this project is to compare the effectiveness of a standardized direct admission approach to admission beginning in the ED for hospitalized children.

Methods/design

We will conduct a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial at 3 structurally and geographically diverse hospitals. A total of 70 primary and urgent care practice sites in the hospitals' catchment areas will be randomized to a time point when they will begin participation in the multi-stakeholder informed direct admission program. This crossover will be unidirectional and occur at 4 time points, 6 months apart, over a 24-month implementation period. Our primary outcome will be the timeliness of clinical care provision. Secondary outcomes include (i) parent-reported experience of care, (ii) unanticipated transfer to the intensive care unit within 6?h of hospital admission, and (iii) rapid response calls within 6?h of hospital admission. We anticipate that 190 children and adolescents will be directly admitted, with 1506 admitted through EDs. Analyses will compare the effectiveness of direct admission to admission through the ED and will evaluate the causal effect of implementing a direct admission program using linear regression with random effects for referring practice clusters and time period fixed effects. We will further examine the heterogeneity of treatment effects based on hypotheses specified a priori. In addition, we will conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation to assess reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of our direct admission intervention.

Discussion

Our study represents the first randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of direct admission to admission through the ED for pediatric patients. Our scientific approach, pairing a stepped wedge design with a multi-level assessment of barriers to and facilitators of implementation, will generate valuable data about how positive findings can be reproduced across other healthcare systems.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04192799 . Registered on December 10, 2019).

SUBMITTER: Leyenaar JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7706271 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of direct admission and admission through emergency departments for children: a randomized stepped wedge study protocol.

Leyenaar JoAnna K JK McDaniel Corrie E CE Acquilano Stephanie C SC Schaefer Andrew P AP Bruce Martha L ML O'Malley A James AJ

Trials 20201130 1

<h4>Background</h4>Approximately 2 million children are hospitalized each year in the United States, with more than three-quarters of non-elective hospitalizations admitted through emergency departments (EDs). Direct admission, defined as admission to hospital without first receiving care in the hospital's ED, may offer benefits for patients and healthcare systems in quality, timeliness, and experience of care. While ED utilization patterns are well studied, there is a paucity of research compar ...[more]

PMID: 33256850

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe challenges imposed by ageing populations will confront health care systems in the years to come. Hospital owners are concerned about the increasing number of acute admissions of older citizens and preventive measures such as integrated care models have been introduced in primary care. Yet, acute admission can be appropriate and lifesaving, but may also in itself lead to adverse health outcome, such as patient anxiety, functional loss and hospital-acquired infections. Timely identification of older citizens at increased risk of acute admission is therefore needed. We present the protocol for the PATINA study, which aims at assessing the effect of the 'PATINA algorithm and decision support tool', designed to alert community nurses of older citizens showing subtle signs of declining health and at increased risk of acute admission. This paper describes the methods, design and intervention of the study.MethodsWe use a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (SW-RCT). The PATINA algorithm and decision support tool will be implemented in 20 individual area home care teams across three Danish municipalities (Kerteminde, Odense and Svendborg). The study population includes all home care receiving community-dwelling citizens aged 65 years and above (around 6500 citizens). An algorithm based on home care use triggers an alert based on relative increase in home care use. Community nurses will use the decision support tool to systematically assess health related changes for citizens with increased risk of acute hospital admission. The primary outcome is acute admission. Secondary outcomes are readmissions, preventable admissions, death, and costs of health care utilization. Barriers and facilitators for community nurse's acceptance and use of the algorithm will be explored too.DiscussionThis 'PATINA algorithm and decision support tool' is expected to positively influence the care for older community-dwelling citizens, by improving nurses' awareness of citizens at increased risk, and by supporting their clinical decision-making. This may increase preventive measures in primary care and reduce use of secondary health care. Further, the study will increase our knowledge of barriers and facilitators to implementing algorithms and decision support in a community care setup.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT04398797 . Registered 13 May 2020.

Project description:BackgroundDespite many efforts, long wait times and overcrowding in emergency departments (EDs) have remained a significant health service issue in Canada. For several years, Canada has had one of the longest wait times among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. From a patient's perspective, this challenge has been described as "patients wait in pain or discomfort for hours before being seen at EDs." To overcome the challenge of increased wait times, we developed an innovative ED management platform called SurgeCon that was designed based on continuous quality improvement principles to maintain patient flow and mitigate the impact of patient surge on ED efficiency. The SurgeCon quality improvement intervention includes a protocol-driven software platform, restructures ED organization and workflow, and aims to establish a more patient-centric environment. We piloted SurgeCon at an ED in Carbonear, Newfoundland and Labrador, and found that there was a 32% reduction in ED wait times.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this trial is to determine the effects of SurgeCon on ED performance by assessing its impact on length of stay, the time to a physician's initial assessment, and the number of patients leaving the ED without being seen by a physician. The secondary objectives of this study are to evaluate SurgeCon's effects on patient satisfaction and patient-reported experiences with ED wait times and its ability to create better-value care by reducing the per-patient cost of delivering ED services.MethodsThe implementation of the intervention will be assessed using a comparative effectiveness-implementation hybrid design. This type of hybrid design is known to shorten the amount of time associated with transitioning interventions from being the focus of research to being used for practice and health care services. All EDs with 24/7 on-site physician support (category A hospitals) will be enrolled in a 31-month, pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial. All clusters (hospitals) will start with a baseline period of usual care and will be randomized to determine the order and timing of transitioning to intervention care until all hospitals are using the intervention to manage and operationalize their EDs.ResultsData collection for this study is continuing. As of February 2022, a total of 570 randomly selected patients have participated in telephone interviews concerning patient-reported experiences and patient satisfaction with ED wait times. The first of the 4 EDs was randomly selected, and it is currently using SurgeCon's eHealth platform and applying efficiency principles that have been learned through training since September 2021. The second randomly selected site will begin intervention implementation in winter 2022.ConclusionsBy assessing the impact of SurgeCon on ED services, we hope to be able to improve wait times and create better-value ED care in this health care context.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04789902; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04789902.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/30454.

Project description:BackgroundPerioperative enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) have been found to decrease hospital length of stay, in-hospital costs, and complications among adult surgical populations but evidence for pediatric populations is lacking. The study is designed to evaluate the adoption, effectiveness, and generalizability of a 21-element ERP, adapted for pediatric surgery.MethodsThe multicenter study is a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, pragmatic clinical trial that will evaluate the effectiveness of the ENhanced Recovery In CHildren Undergoing Surgery (ENRICH-US) intervention while also assessing site-specific adaptations, implementation fidelity, and sustainability. The target patient population is pediatric patients, between 10 and 18 years old, who undergo elective gastrointestinal surgery. Eighteen (N = 18) participating sites will be randomly assigned to one of three clusters with each cluster, in turn, being randomly assigned to an intervention start period (stepped-wedge). Each cluster will participate in a Learning Collaborative, using the National Implementation Research Network's five Active Implementation Frameworks (AIFs) (competency, organization, and leadership), as drivers of facilitation of rapid-cycle adaptations and implementation. The primary study outcome is hospital length of stay, with implementation metrics being used to evaluate adoption, fidelity, and sustainability. Additional clinical outcomes include opioid use, post-surgical complications, and post-discharge healthcare utilization (clinic/emergency room visits, telephone calls to clinic, and re-hospitalizations), as well as, assess patient- and parent-reported health-related quality of life outcomes. The protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.DiscussionThe study provides a unique opportunity to accelerate the adoption of ERPs across 18 US pediatric surgical centers and to evaluate, for the first time, the effect of a pediatric-specific ENRICH-US intervention on clinical and implementation outcomes. The study design and methods can serve as a model for future pediatric surgical quality improvement implementation efforts.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04060303 . Registered on 07 August 2019.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency telehealth has been used to improve accessibility of rural and remote patients to specialist care. Evidence to date has demonstrated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote emergency departments within a variety of contexts. However, systematic reviews to date have not focused on the rural and remote emergency departments. The purpose of this study is to review the outcome measures used in evaluations of emergency telehealth in rural and remote settings and assess evidence relating to their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.MethodsRandomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and full and partial economic evaluations (e.g. cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-utility analyses) of telehealth in rural and remote emergency departments will be included. Comprehensive literature searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases (from 1990 onwards): MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, ProQuest, EconLit, CRD databases (e.g. NHS Economic Evaluation database), and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Two authors will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. The methodological quality (or risk of bias) of individual studies will be appraised using an appropriate tool. A systematic narrative synthesis will be provided with information presented in the text and tables to summarise and explain the characteristics and findings of the studies. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis.DiscussionThis review will identify gaps in the current body of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rural and remote emergency telehealth services. By confining to articles written in the English language, this analysis may be subjected to publication bias and results need to be interpreted accordingly. We believe the results of this review could be valuable for the design of future economic evaluations of emergency telehealth services implemented in the rural and remote context.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019145903.

Project description:BackgroundMedication lists prepared in the emergency department (ED) form the basis for diagnosing and treating patients during hospitalization. Since incomplete medication information may lead to patient harm, it is crucial to obtain a correct and complete medication list at hospital admission. In this cross-sectional retrospective study we wanted to explore medication information completeness in admission notes from Norwegian EDs and investigate which factors were associated with level of completeness.MethodsMedication information was assessed for completeness by applying five evaluation criteria; generic name, formulation, dose, frequency, and indication for use. A medication completeness score in percent was calculated per medication, per admission note and per criterion. Quantile regression analysis was applied to investigate which variables were associated with medication information completeness.ResultsAdmission notes for patients admitted between October 2018 and September 2019 and using at least one medication were included. A total of 1,080 admission notes, containing 8,604 medication orders, were assessed. The individual medications had a mean medication completeness score of 88.1% (SD 16.4), while admission notes had a mean medication completeness score of 86.3% (SD 16.2). Over 90% of all individual medications had information about generic name, formulation, dose and frequency stated, while indication for use was only present in 60%. The use of an electronic tool to prepare medication information had a significantly strong positive association with completeness. Hospital visit within the last 30 days, the patient's living situation, number of medications in use, and which hospital the patient was admitted to, were also associated with information completeness.ConclusionsMedication information completeness in admission notes was high, but potential for improvement regarding documentation of indication for use was identified. Applying an electronic tool when preparing admission notes in EDs seems crucial to safeguard completeness of medication information.

Project description:BackgroundLower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are among the most frequent infections and a significant contributor to inappropriate antibiotic prescription. Currently, no single diagnostic tool can reliably identify bacterial pneumonia. We thus evaluate a multimodal approach based on a clinical score, lung ultrasound (LUS), and the inflammatory biomarker, procalcitonin (PCT) to guide prescription of antibiotics. LUS outperforms chest X-ray in the identification of pneumonia, while PCT is known to be elevated in bacterial and/or severe infections. We propose a trial to test their synergistic potential in reducing antibiotic prescription while preserving patient safety in emergency departments (ED).MethodsThe PLUS-IS-LESS study is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster-randomized, clinical trial conducted in 10 Swiss EDs. It assesses the PLUS algorithm, which combines a clinical prediction score, LUS, PCT, and a clinical severity score to guide antibiotics among adults with LRTIs, compared with usual care. The co-primary endpoints are the proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics and the proportion of patients with clinical failure by day 28. Secondary endpoints include measurement of change in quality of life, length of hospital stay, antibiotic-related side effects, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the algorithm, cost-effectiveness of the intervention, and identification of patterns of pneumonia in LUS using machine learning.DiscussionThe PLUS algorithm aims to optimize prescription of antibiotics through improved diagnostic performance and maximization of physician adherence, while ensuring safety. It is based on previously validated tests and does therefore not expose participants to unforeseeable risks. Cluster randomization prevents cross-contamination between study groups, as physicians are not exposed to the intervention during or before the control period. The stepped-wedge implementation of the intervention allows effect calculation from both between- and within-cluster comparisons, which enhances statistical power and allows smaller sample size than a parallel cluster design. Moreover, it enables the training of all centers for the intervention, simplifying implementation if the results prove successful. The PLUS algorithm has the potential to improve the identification of LRTIs that would benefit from antibiotics. When scaled, the expected reduction in the proportion of antibiotics prescribed has the potential to not only decrease side effects and costs but also mitigate antibiotic resistance.Trial registrationThis study was registered on July 19, 2022, on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry using reference number: NCT05463406.Trial statusRecruitment started on December 5, 2022, and will be completed on November 3, 2024. Current protocol version is version 3.0, dated April 3, 2023.

Project description:IntroductionEmergency departments (ED) care for society's most vulnerable older adults who present with exacerbations of chronic disease at the end of life, yet the clinical paradigm focuses on treatment of acute pathologies. Palliative care interventions in the ED capture high-risk patients at a time of crisis and can dramatically improve patient-centred outcomes. This study aims to implement and evaluate Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) on ED disposition, healthcare utilisation and survival in older adults with serious illness.Methods and analysisThis is the protocol for a pragmatic, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial to test the effectiveness of PRIM-ER in 35 EDs across the USA. The intervention includes four core components: (1) evidence-based, multidisciplinary primary palliative care education; (2) simulation-based workshops; (3) clinical decision support; and (4) audit and feedback. The study is divided into two phases: a pilot phase, to ensure feasibility in two sites, and an implementation and evaluation phase, where we implement the intervention and test the effectiveness in 33 EDs over 2 years. Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data, we will assess the primary outcomes in approximately 300 000 patients: ED disposition to an acute care setting, healthcare utilisation in the 6 months following the ED visit and survival following the index ED visit. Analysis will also determine the site, provider and patient-level characteristics that are associated with variation in impact of PRIM-ER.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at New York University School of Medicine to evaluate the CMS data. Oversight will also be provided by the National Institutes of Health, an Independent Monitoring Committee and a Clinical Informatics Advisory Board. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03424109; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of direct admission and admission through emergency departments for children: a randomized stepped wedge study protocol.

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of direct admission and admission through emergency departments for children: a randomized stepped wedge study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets