4.7 Article

Inpatient Bronchiolitis Guideline Implementation and Resource Utilization

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 133, 期 3, 页码 E730-E737

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-2881

关键词

bronchiolitis; clinical practice guidelines; resources utilization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND:Provider-dependent practice variation in children hospitalized with bronchiolitis is not uncommon. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can streamline practice and reduce utilization however, CPG implementation is complex.METHODS:A multidisciplinary team developed and implemented CPGs for management of bronchiolitis for children <2 years old. Children with comorbidities, ICU admissions, and outside hospital transfers were excluded. Implementation involved teamwork and collaboration, provider education, online access to CPGs, order sets, data sharing, and monthly team meetings. Resource utilization was defined as use of chest x-rays (CXRs), antibiotics, steroids, and more than 2 doses of inhaled bronchodilator use. Outcome metrics included length of stay (LOS) and readmission rate. Bronchiolitis season was defined as September to April. Data were collected for 2 seasons post implementation.RESULTS:The number CPG-eligible patients in the pre- and 2 postimplementation periods were similar (1244, preimplementation; 1159, postimplementation season 1; 1283 postimplementation season 2). CXRs decreased from 59.7% to 45.1% (P < .0001) in season 1 to 39% (P < .0001) in season 2. Bronchodilator use decreased from 27% to 20% (P < .01) in season 1 to 14% (P < .002) in season 2. Steroid use significantly reduced from 19% to 11% (P < .01). Antibiotic use did not change significantly (P = .16). LOS decreased from 2.3 to 1.8 days (P < .0001) in season 1 and 1.9 days (P < .05) in season 2. All-cause 7-day readmission rate did not change (P = .45).CONCLUSIONS:Bronchiolitis CPG implementation resulted in reduced use of CXRs, bronchodilators, steroids, and LOS without affecting 7-day all-cause readmissions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据