ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Continuous Aerosolized Albuterol Treatment for Status Asthmaticus on the General Care Floor: A Quality Improvement Initiative.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Asthma, a leading cause of pediatric hospitalization, affects more than 6 million US children and costs more than $5 billion annually. Continuous aerosolized albuterol (CAA) effectively treats severe exacerbations but is typically reserved for intensive care or emergency settings. This quality improvement project aimed to safely expand CAA use on the general care floor (GCF) by monitoring treatment uptake, protocol adherence, and safety outcomes. Methods: This single-center quality improvement project, led by a multidisciplinary team, included children aged 2-18 years with status asthmaticus on CAA who met the inclusion criteria. Interventions involved protocol development, staff education, electronic health record updates, and a resident-led handoff huddle. Primary outcomes were non-pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) CAA hours and the proportion of patients treated on the GCF. Process measures included protocol use and handoff huddles. Balancing metrics included PICU and emergency transfers, fluid-refractory hypotension, and ED length of stay. Results: From June 2024 to October 2025, GCF CAA accounted for 17% of total hospital CAA, surpassing the 10% target. ED length of stay remained unchanged, indicating no disruption to workflow. We safely treated 72 patients on the GCF (average CAA duration of 21.6 h); 22 (31%) required PICU transfer; none were emergent transfer. This intervention saved 1,017 PICU hours (42.4 PICU bed-days), equivalent to $275,600 in room-and-board costs. These savings represent a substantial reduction in PICU resource use; however, we did not conduct a formal cost-effectiveness analysis. Conclusions: CAA can be safely administered in the GCF following a structured protocol, reducing the need for PICU resources without adversely affecting ED care efficiency.
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.