Introduction: Pediatric emergency department (PED) volume is often constrained by the number of available treatment rooms. In many PEDs patients occupy treatment rooms while awaiting test results or imaging, thereby delaying care for patients who arrive after them.

Methods: We opened a PED where selected patients were moved to a playroom when they did not actively require a treatment room. The treatment room was then available for the next patient. We measured the effect of using the playroom on time from arrival to rooming and length of stay (LOS) using proportional hazards regression and the odds of being roomed within 30 minutes of arrival using logistic regression. We adjusted for the number  of the previous eight patients who were “playroom eligible”; age; triage category; provider; the number of patients who arrived within the preceding hour; prior census; and testing ordered in the preceding eight patients.

Results: We analyzed 43,634 patient encounters, of which 10,134 (23%) were playroom eligible. The adjusted hazards ratio for the next patient being roomed was 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.18) per prior playroom eligible patient. The adjusted odds ratio of the next patient being roomed within 30 minutes was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.33-1.56) per prior playroom eligible patient. The playroom typically decreased median rooming time by four to 42 minutes and LOS by two to 40 minutes depending on patient volumes and acuity. The benefit of the playroom was maximal at busier times.

Conclusion: Implementing a playroom in the PED for selected patients generally decreased time to rooming of the next patient and LOS.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be a life-threatening lung disease or a trivial upper respiratory infection depending on whether the alveoli are involved. Emergency department (ED) evaluation of symptomatic patients with normal vital signs is frequently limited to chest auscultation and oro-nasopharyngeal swabs. We tested the null hypothesis that patients being screened for COVID-19 in the ED with normal vital signs and without hypoxia would have a point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) consistent with COVID-19 less than 2% of the time.

Methods: We performed a retrospective, structured, blinded ultrasound review and chart review in patients 14 years or older with symptoms prompting ED evaluation for COVID-19. We excluded those with known congestive heart failure or other chronic lung conditions likely to cause excessive B-lines on LUS. We used a two-sided exact hypothesis test for binomial random variables. We measured LUS diagnostic performance using computed tomography as the gold standard.

Results: We reviewed 77 charts; 49 met inclusion criteria. Vital signs were normal in 30/49 patients; 10 (33%) of these patients had LUS consistent with viral pneumonitis. We rejected the null hypothesis (p-value <0.001). The treating physicians’ interpretations of their own point-of-care LUS had a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval (CI), 74%, 100%), specificity 88% (95% CI, 47%, 100%), likelihood ratio (LR) positive of 5.8 (95% CI, 1.3, 25), and LR negative of 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03, 0.71) when compared to CT findings.

Conclusion: LUS had a meaningful detection rate for pneumonitis in symptomatic ED patients with normal vital signs who were being evaluated for COVID-19. We recommend at least LUS be used in addition to polymerase chain reaction testing when evaluating symptomatic ED patients for COVID-19.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Background: Decision-support tools (DST) are typically developed by computer engineers for use by clinicians. Prototype testing DSTs may be performed relatively easily by one or two clinical experts. The costly alternative is to test each prototype on a larger number of diverse clinicians, based on the untested assumption that these evaluations would more accurately reflect those of actual end users.

Hypothesis: We hypothesized substantial or better agreement (as defined by a statistic greater than 0.6) between the evaluations of a case based reasoning (CBR) DST predicting ED admission for bronchiolitis performed by the clinically diverse end users, to those of two clinical experts who evaluated the same DST output.

Methods: Three outputs from a previously described DST were evaluated by the emergency physicians (EP) who originally saw the patients and by two pediatric EPs with an interest in bronchiolitis. The DST outputs were as follows: predicted disposition, an example of another previously seen patient to explain the prediction, and explanatory dialog. Each was rated using the scale Definitely Not, No, Maybe, Yes, and Absolutely. This was converted to a Likert scale for analysis. Agreement was measured using the κ statistic.

Results: Agreement with the DST predicted disposition was moderate between end users and the expert reviewers, but was only fair or poor for value of the explanatory case and dialog.

Conclusion: Agreement between expert evaluators and end users on the value of a CBR DST predicted dispositions was moderate. For the more subjective explicative components, agreement was fair, poor, or worse.

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion