• Acad Emerg Med · Feb 2018

    A collaborative in-situ simulation-based pediatric readiness improvement program for community emergency departments.

    • Kamal Abulebda, Riad Lutfi, Travis Whitfill, Samer Abu-Sultaneh, Kellie J Leeper, Elizabeth Weinstein, and Marc A Auerbach.
    • Department of Pediatrics, Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN.
    • Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Feb 1; 25 (2): 177-185.

    BackgroundMore than 30 million children are cared for across 5,000 U.S. emergency departments (EDs) each year. Most of these EDs are not facilities designed and operated solely for children. A Web-based survey provided a national and state-by-state assessment of pediatric readiness and noted a national average score was 69 on a 100-point scale. This survey noted wide variations in ED readiness with scores ranging from 61 in low-pediatric-volume EDs to 90 in the high-pediatric-volume EDs. Additionally, the mean score at the state level ranged from 57 (Wyoming) to 83 (Florida) and for individual EDs ranged from 22 to 100. The majority of prior efforts made to improve pediatric readiness have involved providing Web-based resources and online toolkits. This article reports on the first year of a program that aimed to improve pediatric readiness across community hospitals in our state through in situ simulation-based assessment facilitated by our academic medical center. The primary aim was to improve the pediatric readiness scores in the 10 participating hospitals. The secondary aim was to explore the correlation of simulation-based performance of hospital teams with pediatric readiness scores.MethodsThis interventional study measured the Pediatric Readiness Survey (PRS) prior to and after implementation of an improvement program. This program consisted of three components: 1) in situ simulations, 2) report-outs, and 3) access to online pediatric readiness resources and content experts. The simulations were conducted in situ (in the ED resuscitation bay) by multiprofessional teams of doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, and technicians. Simulations and debriefings were facilitated by an expert team from a pediatric academic medical center. Three scenarios were conducted for all teams and include: a 6-month-old with respiratory failure, an 8-year-old with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and a 6-month-old with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). A performance score was calculated for each scenario. The improvement of PRS was compared before and after the simulation program. The correlation of the simulation performance of each hospital and the PRS was calculated.ResultsForty-one multiprofessional teams from 10 EDs in Indiana participated in the study, five were of medium pediatric volume and five were medium- to high-volume EDs. The PRS significantly improved from the first to the second on-site verification assessment (58.4 ± 4.8 to 74.7 ± 2.9, p = 0.009). Total adherence scores to scenario guidelines were 54.7, 56.4, and 62.4% in the respiratory failure, DKA, and SVT scenarios, respectively. We found no correlation between simulation performance and PRS scores. Medium ED pediatric volume significantly predicted higher PRS scores compared to medium-high pediatric ED volume (β = 8.7; confidence interval = 0.72-16.8, p = 0.034).ConclusionsOur collaborative improvement program that involved simulation was associated with improvement in pediatric readiness scores in 10 EDs participating statewide. Future work will focus on further expanding of the network and establishing a national model for pediatric readiness improvement.© 2017 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.