ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Pediatric ED Saves: Analyzing the ED Screen of Direct Admissions.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct admissions (DAs) are a routine hospital entry portal with few guidelines to assess patient safety during this process. This study assessed the effectiveness of an institutional screen for patients presenting as DA. It investigated patient variables that may predict appropriateness for DA and those at high risk for deterioration. Methods: The study includes patients who received the institutional screen between June 1, 2019, and May 31, 2020. We placed charts into three groups: group 1 (stable), group 2 (unstable), and group 3 (stable then transferred to pediatric intensive care unit within 6 hours). We assessed effectiveness by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. We used comparative analysis between groups to identify patients safe for DA and those at high risk for deterioration. Results: The screen was 80% sensitive and 100% specific, predicting 97.7% of stable patients. Of the 652 charts reviewed, 384 met the inclusion criteria. Group 1 (31.60, 26.45%, 5.23%) had lower respiratory rate, respiratory diagnosis, and oxygen requirement compared to group 2 (45.00, 78.13%, 15.63%) and group 3 (44.50, 75.00%, 50.00%). For SpO Conclusions: The institutional screen is an effective tool to identify patients presenting as DA needing immediate emergency department intervention and/or pediatric intensive care unit care. The screen benefits patients with a respiratory diagnosis, oxygen requirement, high respiratory rate or low SpO
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.