We have located links that may give you full text access.
Analysis of pediatric hospitalizations after emergency department release as a quality improvement tool.
Annals of Emergency Medicine 2002 Februrary
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We characterize repeat pediatric emergency department visits and determine the cause for such visits as an indicator of potential need for quality improvement. We hypothesized that most repeat ED visits resulting in hospitalization do not represent medical errors.
METHODS: The study was performed at a large, tertiary care, academic children's hospital. Patients who returned to the ED within 72 hours of a previous visit were identified by computerized registration data. The charts of these patients were then reviewed by a member of the ED medical staff to identify factors from the initial visit that contributed to the return visit. A multidisciplinary committee then reviewed each case until consensus was achieved regarding the cause for the repeat visit. In this study, we analyzed the quality improvement decisions from a 12-month period.
RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, during which there were a total of 51,195 visits, 285 (0.56%) patients were hospitalized after a repeat visit. The repeat visit was determined to be unrelated to the first visit in 12 (4.2%) patients. In 12 (4.2%) cases, the cause for repeat visit and hospitalization could not be determined. This resulted in a total of 261 patients for analysis. In 234 (90.0%) patients, the return visit was determined to be a result of the progression of illness (no medical error). Ten (3.8%) patients had a missed diagnosis, whereas 2 (0.8%) patients had errors in their treatment (likely medical error). An incomplete workup was cited in 7 (2.7%) patients (potential medical error). Parenting factors (refusing admission, not filling prescriptions, not giving prescribed medications) were noted in 5 (1.9%) cases. Three (1.1%) patients did not follow up with appropriate subspecialists.
CONCLUSION: The overall rate of repeat visits resulting in hospitalization is small. In the majority of these cases (90.0%), the ED evaluation was appropriate and the admission was for progression of the patient's illness. Given the small number of patients and the infrequency of missed diagnoses, this may not be an efficient method for assessing ED performance.
METHODS: The study was performed at a large, tertiary care, academic children's hospital. Patients who returned to the ED within 72 hours of a previous visit were identified by computerized registration data. The charts of these patients were then reviewed by a member of the ED medical staff to identify factors from the initial visit that contributed to the return visit. A multidisciplinary committee then reviewed each case until consensus was achieved regarding the cause for the repeat visit. In this study, we analyzed the quality improvement decisions from a 12-month period.
RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, during which there were a total of 51,195 visits, 285 (0.56%) patients were hospitalized after a repeat visit. The repeat visit was determined to be unrelated to the first visit in 12 (4.2%) patients. In 12 (4.2%) cases, the cause for repeat visit and hospitalization could not be determined. This resulted in a total of 261 patients for analysis. In 234 (90.0%) patients, the return visit was determined to be a result of the progression of illness (no medical error). Ten (3.8%) patients had a missed diagnosis, whereas 2 (0.8%) patients had errors in their treatment (likely medical error). An incomplete workup was cited in 7 (2.7%) patients (potential medical error). Parenting factors (refusing admission, not filling prescriptions, not giving prescribed medications) were noted in 5 (1.9%) cases. Three (1.1%) patients did not follow up with appropriate subspecialists.
CONCLUSION: The overall rate of repeat visits resulting in hospitalization is small. In the majority of these cases (90.0%), the ED evaluation was appropriate and the admission was for progression of the patient's illness. Given the small number of patients and the infrequency of missed diagnoses, this may not be an efficient method for assessing ED performance.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app