Triage Policies at U.S. Hospitals with Pediatric Intensive Care Units.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2022.2160508
Erica K Salter, Jay R Malone, Amanda Berg, Annie B Friedrich, Alexandra Hucker, Hillary King, Armand H Matheny Antommaria
{"title":"Triage Policies at U.S. Hospitals with Pediatric Intensive Care Units.","authors":"Erica K Salter,&nbsp;Jay R Malone,&nbsp;Amanda Berg,&nbsp;Annie B Friedrich,&nbsp;Alexandra Hucker,&nbsp;Hillary King,&nbsp;Armand H Matheny Antommaria","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2022.2160508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To characterize the prevalence and content of pediatric triage policies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed and solicited policies from U.S. hospitals with pediatric intensive care units. Policies were analyzed using qualitative methods and coded by 2 investigators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four of 120 institutions (28%) responded. Twenty-five (74%) were freestanding children's hospitals and 9 (26%) were hospitals within a hospital. Nine (26%) had approved policies, 9 (26%) had draft policies, 5 (14%) were developing policies, and 7 (20%) did not have policies. Nineteen (68%) institutions shared their approved or draft policy. Eight (42%) of those policies included neonates. The polices identified 0 to 5 (median 2) factors to prioritize patients. The most common factors were short- (17, 90%) and long- (14, 74%) term predicted mortality. Pediatric scoring systems included Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (12, 63%) and Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology and Perinatal Extensions-II (4, 21%). Thirteen (68%) policies described a formal algorithm. The most common tiebreakers were random/lottery (10, 71%) and life cycles (9, 64%). The majority (15, 79%) of policies specified the roles of triage team members and 13 (68%) precluded those participating in patient care from making triage decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While many institutions still do not have pediatric triage policies, there appears to be a trend among those with policies to utilize a formal algorithm that focuses on short- and long-term predicted mortality and that incorporates age-appropriate scoring systems. Additional work is needed to expand access to pediatric-specific policies, to validate scoring systems, and to address health disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"14 2","pages":"84-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2160508","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To characterize the prevalence and content of pediatric triage policies.

Methods: We surveyed and solicited policies from U.S. hospitals with pediatric intensive care units. Policies were analyzed using qualitative methods and coded by 2 investigators.

Results: Thirty-four of 120 institutions (28%) responded. Twenty-five (74%) were freestanding children's hospitals and 9 (26%) were hospitals within a hospital. Nine (26%) had approved policies, 9 (26%) had draft policies, 5 (14%) were developing policies, and 7 (20%) did not have policies. Nineteen (68%) institutions shared their approved or draft policy. Eight (42%) of those policies included neonates. The polices identified 0 to 5 (median 2) factors to prioritize patients. The most common factors were short- (17, 90%) and long- (14, 74%) term predicted mortality. Pediatric scoring systems included Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (12, 63%) and Score for Neonatal Acute Physiology and Perinatal Extensions-II (4, 21%). Thirteen (68%) policies described a formal algorithm. The most common tiebreakers were random/lottery (10, 71%) and life cycles (9, 64%). The majority (15, 79%) of policies specified the roles of triage team members and 13 (68%) precluded those participating in patient care from making triage decisions.

Conclusions: While many institutions still do not have pediatric triage policies, there appears to be a trend among those with policies to utilize a formal algorithm that focuses on short- and long-term predicted mortality and that incorporates age-appropriate scoring systems. Additional work is needed to expand access to pediatric-specific policies, to validate scoring systems, and to address health disparities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国儿科重症监护病房医院的分诊政策。
目的:描述儿科分诊政策的流行程度和内容。方法:我们调查并征求美国设有儿科重症监护病房的医院的政策。政策分析采用定性方法,并由2名调查员编码。结果:120所院校中有34所(28%)做出了回应。25家(74%)为独立儿童医院,9家(26%)为院内医院。9家(26%)有政策批准,9家(26%)有政策草案,5家(14%)正在制定政策,7家(20%)没有政策。19家(68%)机构分享了他们已批准或起草的政策。其中8项(42%)政策包括新生儿。政策确定了0到5个(中位数2)因素来优先考虑患者。最常见的因素是短期(17.90%)和长期(14.74%)预测死亡率。儿科评分系统包括儿科后勤器官功能障碍-2(12.63%)和新生儿急性生理和围产期延伸评分- ii(4.21%)。13个(68%)策略描述了一个正式的算法。最常见的决定因素是随机/抽签(10.71%)和生命周期(9.64%)。大多数(15.79%)的政策规定了分诊团队成员的角色,13(68%)的政策排除了那些参与病人护理的人做出分诊决定。结论:虽然许多机构仍然没有儿科分诊政策,但在那些有政策的机构中,似乎有一种趋势,即利用一种正式的算法,该算法侧重于短期和长期预测死亡率,并结合了适合年龄的评分系统。需要进一步开展工作,扩大获得儿科特定政策的机会,验证评分系统,并解决卫生差距问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1