ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Reduction of Very Rapid Emergency Transfers to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric ED Saves: Analyzing the ED Screen of Direct Admissions.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Focused Team Engagements to Enhance Interprofessional Collaboration and Safety Behaviors among Novice Nurses and Medical Residents.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Emergency transfers are associated with increased inpatient pediatric mortality. Therefore, interventions to improve system-level situational awareness were utilized to decrease a subset of emergency transfers that occurred within four hours of admission to an inpatient medical-surgical unit called very rapid emergency transfers (VRET). Specifically, we aimed to increase the days between VRET from non-ICU inpatient units from every 10 days to every 25 days over 1 year. Methods: Using the Model for Improvement, we developed an interdisciplinary team to reduce VRET. The key drivers targeted were the admission process from the emergency department and ambulatory clinics, sepsis recognition and communication, and expansion of our situational awareness framework. Days between VRET defined the primary outcome metric for this improvement project. Results: After six months of interventions, our baseline improved from a VRET every 10 days to every 79 days, followed by another shift to 177 days, which we sustained for 3 years peaking at 468 days between events. Conclusion: Interventions targeting multiple admission sources to improve early recognition and communication of potential clinical deterioration effectively reduced and nearly eliminated VRET at our organization.
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.