Affiliations
Children's Hospital of The King's Daughters, Norfolk, Virginia
Given name(s)
Ricardo
Family name
Quinonez
Degrees
MD

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use and Outcomes for Status Asthmaticus in Children’s Hospitals from 2010 to 2017

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 06/30/2020 - 09:39

For severe asthma exacerbations unresponsive to initial treatment, expert consensus guidelines from 2007 recommend consideration for adjunct treatments (magnesium or heliox) to decrease the likelihood of intubation.1 Over the last decade, data have emerged suggesting that intravenous (IV) magnesium may be more effective for reduction of hospital admission rates.2 Pooled meta-analyses have demonstrated improved pulmonary function and reduction of hospital admission by as much as 68% in children when IV magnesium is administered in the emergency department (ED), although the evidence is extremely limited because of a small number of studies (three) and small sample size (115 children).2-5

Though these data suggest that use of IV magnesium may reduce admission rates, a study of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians in US and Canada reported reluctance regarding use for this purpose. While PEM physicians reported awareness of the literature on admission prevention, they estimated that fewer than 5% of their patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home.6 Their practice was generally limited to using IV magnesium in children with impending respiratory failure for the purpose of reducing intensive care unit (ICU) admission and not hospitalization.6 PEM physicians’ reluctance to use IV magnesium was related to the lack of strong available evidence supporting the impact of IV magnesium on outcomes, such as admission, and gaps in the literature about its dosing and safety profile.

The goal of this study was to assess the prevailing trends in IV magnesium use across US children’s hospitals and to assess the relationship of IV magnesium use to admission rate, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, and ICU admission rate. We hypothesized that IV magnesium use might have increased following publication of studies demonstrating an association between IV magnesium use and fewer admissions.

METHODS

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a retrospective cohort study of asthma (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group 141) hospitalizations for patients less than 18 years old presenting to 35 tertiary care children’s hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, included in the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS; Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) database. The PHIS database is an administrative database that contains demographics, International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revision diagnoses and procedures, and daily billing records for all inpatient, observation, ED, and ambulatory surgery encounters. All data were deidentified prior to inclusion in the database and tracking of patients across ED and inpatient visits was achieved through an encrypted and unique patient identifier. Children transferred from other hospitals were excluded because we could not verify IV magnesium use prior to transfer. For hospitals to be included, they were required to provide continuous data throughout the study period.

Main Outcome Measure

The main outcome was exposure to IV magnesium as determined by billing information available in the PHIS database.

Patient Demographics

We assessed patients’ demographic characteristics, including age (younger than 5 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years), sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status.

Healthcare Utilization and Hospital Characteristics

We assessed healthcare utilization using geometric mean LOS, proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and to the ICU, and the proportion of patients with a 7-day all-cause readmission. In addition, we divided hospitals into three equal groups based on their annual inpatient asthma volume (<300, 300-850, >850 cases per year).

Statistical Analysis

We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across patients receiving IV magnesium with those who did not receive it with use of chi-square tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. We calculated annual IV magnesium use rates for each hospital and modeled the average annual rate with a general linear model in order to assess change over time. We used Pearson product moment correlation to compare the annual proportion of magnesium use and healthcare utilization measures, including geometric mean LOS, the proportion of patients using the inpatient wards or the ICU, and the proportion of cases with a 7-day all-cause readmission. Geometric mean LOS was used to normalize the compounding effect of non–normally distributed arithmetic mean LOS. A sensitivity analysis was performed stratifying IV magnesium use over time by hospital inpatient volume. Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Study Population

A total of 878,188 encounters with acute asthma exacerbation met the inclusion criteria, with 65,558 (7.5%) receiving IV magnesium (Table). Of those receiving IV magnesium, 90% were admitted to the hospital. There were statistically significant differences in IV magnesium use when compared by age, race/ethnicity, and payer type, but not gender. IV magnesium use was significantly associated with older age (more than 5 years old), non-Hispanic black race, ED visit in the year prior to admission, longer hospital LOS, and higher ICU admission rate.

Social Demographics of Participants

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use

IV magnesium use among hospitalized children more than doubled from 2010 to 2017 (17% vs 36%). Low-volume hospitals had a lower frequency of IV magnesium use, compared with the moderate- and high-volume hospitals. The growth rate per year of IV magnesium use was greater in high- and moderate-volume hospitals (3.4% and 2.9% per year, respectively), compared with the low-volume hospitals (1.2% per year; P = .04).

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use and Hospital Outcomes

The trend in IV magnesium use was not associated with a statistically significant change in the inpatient and ICU admission rate or in the 7-day all-cause readmission rate (Figure and Appendix Figure). Although IV magnesium use increased over time, LOS decreased significantly during the same period (1.6 days in 2010 vs 1.4 days in 2017; P < .001). When analyzed by hospital volume, no significant associations were found in the inpatient admission, ICU admission, and 7-day readmission rate.

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Sulfate Use and Hospital Outcomes at 35 Children’s Hospitals, 2010 to 2017

DISCUSSION

The use of IV magnesium has significantly increased in US children’s hospitals over the last 8 years, especially among those hospitalized following an ED evaluation. Over this interval, trends in inpatient and ICU admission rate, as well as 7-day all-cause readmission rate, for asthma did not change, while LOS decreased. These findings contrast with a recent Cochrane review that summarized the efficacy of IV magnesium for reducing admission rate in few small trials.2

Our study findings are more consistent with prior survey findings that IV magnesium does not reduce hospitalization and that ED physicians tend to use IV magnesium in severe asthma exacerbation for its potential therapeutic benefits because of bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory effect.6,7 Similar to PEM physicians’ estimates, only 10% of patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home in our study.

IV magnesium use is higher in high-volume hospitals than in moderate- and low-volume ones. One potential explanation is that high- and moderate-volume hospitals may see a higher volume of children with severe or impending respiratory failure and, therefore, are more likely to use IV magnesium than the low-volume hospitals are. Alternatively, physician adoption of magnesium use for lower-acuity asthma exacerbations could vary by hospital volume.

Trend analyses of outcomes suggest that increase in IV magnesium use was not associated with an increase in inpatient and ICU admission rate or with 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS reduced. LOS might be reduced because of various quality improvement initiatives (eg, discharging patients after every 3 hours albuterol treatments or respiratory therapist–driven protocols) and might not be related to IV magnesium use.8,9 To this point, a recent study of a respiratory assessment score–matched cohort did not find any therapeutic benefit of IV magnesium with severe asthma exacerbation when receiving continuous albuterol therapy on a pediatric ward.5 Perhaps future studies could explore estimating the outcome by performing comparative effectiveness studies between those with severe asthma exacerbation who did or did not receive IV magnesium. Additionally, randomized controlled trials comparing IV magnesium and standard therapy and its effects on outcomes, such as hospitalization, LOS, association with asthma chronicity, and previous oral steroid use, might provide further insight to inform clinical practice.

Certain study limitations should be noted. The study cohort included children’s hospitals only, and it is possible that care at nonchildren’s hospitals for asthma differs. PHIS dataset used in this study does not allow determination of where and when IV magnesium was given, the severity of asthma exacerbation, or the chronicity of baseline disease. Moreover, PHIS hospitals include centers in large cities, and other competing children’s hospitals may provide other tertiary care that could affect the readmission data calculation. Lastly, the temporal associations between IV magnesium use and outcomes reported in this study should not be used as evidence or lack of evidence for the effectiveness of magnesium given the limitations of the observational study design and dataset used.

In conclusion, IV magnesium use in management of asthma exacerbation in children across the United States has significantly increased. The increase occurred disproportionately in high-volume hospitals and was not associated with changes in admission rate, ICU admission rate, or 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS has decreased over time.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article or conflicts of interest to disclose. 

This paper was a platform presentation at annual meetings of Pediatric Academic Societies 2019; accepted for presentation at annual meeting of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, July 2019.

Funding Source

No funding was secured for this study. 

Files
References

1. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program, Third Expert Panel on the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Bethesda, Maryland: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7232/.
2. Griffiths B, Kew KM. Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating children with acute asthma in the emergency department. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4(4):CD011050. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011050.pub2.
3. Shan Z, Rong Y, Yang W, et al. Intravenous and nebulized magnesium sulfate for treating acute asthma in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Med. 2013;107(3):321-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.med.2012.12.001.
4. Rower J, Liu X, Yu T, Mundorff M, Sherwin C, Johnson M. Clinical pharmacokinetics of magnesium sulfate in treatment of children with severe acute asthma. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73(3):325-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-016-2165-3.
5. Desanti R, Agasthya N, Hunter K, Hussain M. The effectiveness of magnesium sulfate for status asthmaticus outside intensive care unit. Pediatric Pulmonol. 2018;53(7):866-871. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.24013.Epub 2018.
6. Schuh S, Macias C, Freedman S, et al. North American practice patterns of intravenous magnesium sulfate in severe acute asthma exacerbations. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(11):1189-1196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00913.x.
7. Cheuk DK, Chau TC, Lee SL. A meta-analysis on intravenous magnesium sulphate for treating acute asthma. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(1):74-77. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.050005.
8. Lo HY, Messer A, Loveless J, et al. Discharging asthma patients on 3-hour β-agonist treatments: a quality improvement project. Hosp Pediatr. 2018;8(12):733-739. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2018-0072.
9. Magruder TG, Narayanan S, Walley S, et al. Improving inpatient asthma management: the implementation and evaluation of pediatric asthma clinical pathway. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2017;2(5);e041. https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000041.

Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 15(7)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
403-406. Published Online First June 17, 2020
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

For severe asthma exacerbations unresponsive to initial treatment, expert consensus guidelines from 2007 recommend consideration for adjunct treatments (magnesium or heliox) to decrease the likelihood of intubation.1 Over the last decade, data have emerged suggesting that intravenous (IV) magnesium may be more effective for reduction of hospital admission rates.2 Pooled meta-analyses have demonstrated improved pulmonary function and reduction of hospital admission by as much as 68% in children when IV magnesium is administered in the emergency department (ED), although the evidence is extremely limited because of a small number of studies (three) and small sample size (115 children).2-5

Though these data suggest that use of IV magnesium may reduce admission rates, a study of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians in US and Canada reported reluctance regarding use for this purpose. While PEM physicians reported awareness of the literature on admission prevention, they estimated that fewer than 5% of their patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home.6 Their practice was generally limited to using IV magnesium in children with impending respiratory failure for the purpose of reducing intensive care unit (ICU) admission and not hospitalization.6 PEM physicians’ reluctance to use IV magnesium was related to the lack of strong available evidence supporting the impact of IV magnesium on outcomes, such as admission, and gaps in the literature about its dosing and safety profile.

The goal of this study was to assess the prevailing trends in IV magnesium use across US children’s hospitals and to assess the relationship of IV magnesium use to admission rate, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, and ICU admission rate. We hypothesized that IV magnesium use might have increased following publication of studies demonstrating an association between IV magnesium use and fewer admissions.

METHODS

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a retrospective cohort study of asthma (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group 141) hospitalizations for patients less than 18 years old presenting to 35 tertiary care children’s hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, included in the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS; Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) database. The PHIS database is an administrative database that contains demographics, International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revision diagnoses and procedures, and daily billing records for all inpatient, observation, ED, and ambulatory surgery encounters. All data were deidentified prior to inclusion in the database and tracking of patients across ED and inpatient visits was achieved through an encrypted and unique patient identifier. Children transferred from other hospitals were excluded because we could not verify IV magnesium use prior to transfer. For hospitals to be included, they were required to provide continuous data throughout the study period.

Main Outcome Measure

The main outcome was exposure to IV magnesium as determined by billing information available in the PHIS database.

Patient Demographics

We assessed patients’ demographic characteristics, including age (younger than 5 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years), sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status.

Healthcare Utilization and Hospital Characteristics

We assessed healthcare utilization using geometric mean LOS, proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and to the ICU, and the proportion of patients with a 7-day all-cause readmission. In addition, we divided hospitals into three equal groups based on their annual inpatient asthma volume (<300, 300-850, >850 cases per year).

Statistical Analysis

We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across patients receiving IV magnesium with those who did not receive it with use of chi-square tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. We calculated annual IV magnesium use rates for each hospital and modeled the average annual rate with a general linear model in order to assess change over time. We used Pearson product moment correlation to compare the annual proportion of magnesium use and healthcare utilization measures, including geometric mean LOS, the proportion of patients using the inpatient wards or the ICU, and the proportion of cases with a 7-day all-cause readmission. Geometric mean LOS was used to normalize the compounding effect of non–normally distributed arithmetic mean LOS. A sensitivity analysis was performed stratifying IV magnesium use over time by hospital inpatient volume. Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Study Population

A total of 878,188 encounters with acute asthma exacerbation met the inclusion criteria, with 65,558 (7.5%) receiving IV magnesium (Table). Of those receiving IV magnesium, 90% were admitted to the hospital. There were statistically significant differences in IV magnesium use when compared by age, race/ethnicity, and payer type, but not gender. IV magnesium use was significantly associated with older age (more than 5 years old), non-Hispanic black race, ED visit in the year prior to admission, longer hospital LOS, and higher ICU admission rate.

Social Demographics of Participants

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use

IV magnesium use among hospitalized children more than doubled from 2010 to 2017 (17% vs 36%). Low-volume hospitals had a lower frequency of IV magnesium use, compared with the moderate- and high-volume hospitals. The growth rate per year of IV magnesium use was greater in high- and moderate-volume hospitals (3.4% and 2.9% per year, respectively), compared with the low-volume hospitals (1.2% per year; P = .04).

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use and Hospital Outcomes

The trend in IV magnesium use was not associated with a statistically significant change in the inpatient and ICU admission rate or in the 7-day all-cause readmission rate (Figure and Appendix Figure). Although IV magnesium use increased over time, LOS decreased significantly during the same period (1.6 days in 2010 vs 1.4 days in 2017; P < .001). When analyzed by hospital volume, no significant associations were found in the inpatient admission, ICU admission, and 7-day readmission rate.

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Sulfate Use and Hospital Outcomes at 35 Children’s Hospitals, 2010 to 2017

DISCUSSION

The use of IV magnesium has significantly increased in US children’s hospitals over the last 8 years, especially among those hospitalized following an ED evaluation. Over this interval, trends in inpatient and ICU admission rate, as well as 7-day all-cause readmission rate, for asthma did not change, while LOS decreased. These findings contrast with a recent Cochrane review that summarized the efficacy of IV magnesium for reducing admission rate in few small trials.2

Our study findings are more consistent with prior survey findings that IV magnesium does not reduce hospitalization and that ED physicians tend to use IV magnesium in severe asthma exacerbation for its potential therapeutic benefits because of bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory effect.6,7 Similar to PEM physicians’ estimates, only 10% of patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home in our study.

IV magnesium use is higher in high-volume hospitals than in moderate- and low-volume ones. One potential explanation is that high- and moderate-volume hospitals may see a higher volume of children with severe or impending respiratory failure and, therefore, are more likely to use IV magnesium than the low-volume hospitals are. Alternatively, physician adoption of magnesium use for lower-acuity asthma exacerbations could vary by hospital volume.

Trend analyses of outcomes suggest that increase in IV magnesium use was not associated with an increase in inpatient and ICU admission rate or with 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS reduced. LOS might be reduced because of various quality improvement initiatives (eg, discharging patients after every 3 hours albuterol treatments or respiratory therapist–driven protocols) and might not be related to IV magnesium use.8,9 To this point, a recent study of a respiratory assessment score–matched cohort did not find any therapeutic benefit of IV magnesium with severe asthma exacerbation when receiving continuous albuterol therapy on a pediatric ward.5 Perhaps future studies could explore estimating the outcome by performing comparative effectiveness studies between those with severe asthma exacerbation who did or did not receive IV magnesium. Additionally, randomized controlled trials comparing IV magnesium and standard therapy and its effects on outcomes, such as hospitalization, LOS, association with asthma chronicity, and previous oral steroid use, might provide further insight to inform clinical practice.

Certain study limitations should be noted. The study cohort included children’s hospitals only, and it is possible that care at nonchildren’s hospitals for asthma differs. PHIS dataset used in this study does not allow determination of where and when IV magnesium was given, the severity of asthma exacerbation, or the chronicity of baseline disease. Moreover, PHIS hospitals include centers in large cities, and other competing children’s hospitals may provide other tertiary care that could affect the readmission data calculation. Lastly, the temporal associations between IV magnesium use and outcomes reported in this study should not be used as evidence or lack of evidence for the effectiveness of magnesium given the limitations of the observational study design and dataset used.

In conclusion, IV magnesium use in management of asthma exacerbation in children across the United States has significantly increased. The increase occurred disproportionately in high-volume hospitals and was not associated with changes in admission rate, ICU admission rate, or 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS has decreased over time.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article or conflicts of interest to disclose. 

This paper was a platform presentation at annual meetings of Pediatric Academic Societies 2019; accepted for presentation at annual meeting of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, July 2019.

Funding Source

No funding was secured for this study. 

For severe asthma exacerbations unresponsive to initial treatment, expert consensus guidelines from 2007 recommend consideration for adjunct treatments (magnesium or heliox) to decrease the likelihood of intubation.1 Over the last decade, data have emerged suggesting that intravenous (IV) magnesium may be more effective for reduction of hospital admission rates.2 Pooled meta-analyses have demonstrated improved pulmonary function and reduction of hospital admission by as much as 68% in children when IV magnesium is administered in the emergency department (ED), although the evidence is extremely limited because of a small number of studies (three) and small sample size (115 children).2-5

Though these data suggest that use of IV magnesium may reduce admission rates, a study of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians in US and Canada reported reluctance regarding use for this purpose. While PEM physicians reported awareness of the literature on admission prevention, they estimated that fewer than 5% of their patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home.6 Their practice was generally limited to using IV magnesium in children with impending respiratory failure for the purpose of reducing intensive care unit (ICU) admission and not hospitalization.6 PEM physicians’ reluctance to use IV magnesium was related to the lack of strong available evidence supporting the impact of IV magnesium on outcomes, such as admission, and gaps in the literature about its dosing and safety profile.

The goal of this study was to assess the prevailing trends in IV magnesium use across US children’s hospitals and to assess the relationship of IV magnesium use to admission rate, length of stay (LOS), readmission rate, and ICU admission rate. We hypothesized that IV magnesium use might have increased following publication of studies demonstrating an association between IV magnesium use and fewer admissions.

METHODS

Study Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a retrospective cohort study of asthma (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group 141) hospitalizations for patients less than 18 years old presenting to 35 tertiary care children’s hospitals from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, included in the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS; Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas) database. The PHIS database is an administrative database that contains demographics, International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th Revision diagnoses and procedures, and daily billing records for all inpatient, observation, ED, and ambulatory surgery encounters. All data were deidentified prior to inclusion in the database and tracking of patients across ED and inpatient visits was achieved through an encrypted and unique patient identifier. Children transferred from other hospitals were excluded because we could not verify IV magnesium use prior to transfer. For hospitals to be included, they were required to provide continuous data throughout the study period.

Main Outcome Measure

The main outcome was exposure to IV magnesium as determined by billing information available in the PHIS database.

Patient Demographics

We assessed patients’ demographic characteristics, including age (younger than 5 years, 5-11 years, and 12-17 years), sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status.

Healthcare Utilization and Hospital Characteristics

We assessed healthcare utilization using geometric mean LOS, proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and to the ICU, and the proportion of patients with a 7-day all-cause readmission. In addition, we divided hospitals into three equal groups based on their annual inpatient asthma volume (<300, 300-850, >850 cases per year).

Statistical Analysis

We compared demographic and clinical characteristics across patients receiving IV magnesium with those who did not receive it with use of chi-square tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. We calculated annual IV magnesium use rates for each hospital and modeled the average annual rate with a general linear model in order to assess change over time. We used Pearson product moment correlation to compare the annual proportion of magnesium use and healthcare utilization measures, including geometric mean LOS, the proportion of patients using the inpatient wards or the ICU, and the proportion of cases with a 7-day all-cause readmission. Geometric mean LOS was used to normalize the compounding effect of non–normally distributed arithmetic mean LOS. A sensitivity analysis was performed stratifying IV magnesium use over time by hospital inpatient volume. Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Study Population

A total of 878,188 encounters with acute asthma exacerbation met the inclusion criteria, with 65,558 (7.5%) receiving IV magnesium (Table). Of those receiving IV magnesium, 90% were admitted to the hospital. There were statistically significant differences in IV magnesium use when compared by age, race/ethnicity, and payer type, but not gender. IV magnesium use was significantly associated with older age (more than 5 years old), non-Hispanic black race, ED visit in the year prior to admission, longer hospital LOS, and higher ICU admission rate.

Social Demographics of Participants

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use

IV magnesium use among hospitalized children more than doubled from 2010 to 2017 (17% vs 36%). Low-volume hospitals had a lower frequency of IV magnesium use, compared with the moderate- and high-volume hospitals. The growth rate per year of IV magnesium use was greater in high- and moderate-volume hospitals (3.4% and 2.9% per year, respectively), compared with the low-volume hospitals (1.2% per year; P = .04).

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Use and Hospital Outcomes

The trend in IV magnesium use was not associated with a statistically significant change in the inpatient and ICU admission rate or in the 7-day all-cause readmission rate (Figure and Appendix Figure). Although IV magnesium use increased over time, LOS decreased significantly during the same period (1.6 days in 2010 vs 1.4 days in 2017; P < .001). When analyzed by hospital volume, no significant associations were found in the inpatient admission, ICU admission, and 7-day readmission rate.

Trends in Intravenous Magnesium Sulfate Use and Hospital Outcomes at 35 Children’s Hospitals, 2010 to 2017

DISCUSSION

The use of IV magnesium has significantly increased in US children’s hospitals over the last 8 years, especially among those hospitalized following an ED evaluation. Over this interval, trends in inpatient and ICU admission rate, as well as 7-day all-cause readmission rate, for asthma did not change, while LOS decreased. These findings contrast with a recent Cochrane review that summarized the efficacy of IV magnesium for reducing admission rate in few small trials.2

Our study findings are more consistent with prior survey findings that IV magnesium does not reduce hospitalization and that ED physicians tend to use IV magnesium in severe asthma exacerbation for its potential therapeutic benefits because of bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory effect.6,7 Similar to PEM physicians’ estimates, only 10% of patients receiving IV magnesium were discharged home in our study.

IV magnesium use is higher in high-volume hospitals than in moderate- and low-volume ones. One potential explanation is that high- and moderate-volume hospitals may see a higher volume of children with severe or impending respiratory failure and, therefore, are more likely to use IV magnesium than the low-volume hospitals are. Alternatively, physician adoption of magnesium use for lower-acuity asthma exacerbations could vary by hospital volume.

Trend analyses of outcomes suggest that increase in IV magnesium use was not associated with an increase in inpatient and ICU admission rate or with 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS reduced. LOS might be reduced because of various quality improvement initiatives (eg, discharging patients after every 3 hours albuterol treatments or respiratory therapist–driven protocols) and might not be related to IV magnesium use.8,9 To this point, a recent study of a respiratory assessment score–matched cohort did not find any therapeutic benefit of IV magnesium with severe asthma exacerbation when receiving continuous albuterol therapy on a pediatric ward.5 Perhaps future studies could explore estimating the outcome by performing comparative effectiveness studies between those with severe asthma exacerbation who did or did not receive IV magnesium. Additionally, randomized controlled trials comparing IV magnesium and standard therapy and its effects on outcomes, such as hospitalization, LOS, association with asthma chronicity, and previous oral steroid use, might provide further insight to inform clinical practice.

Certain study limitations should be noted. The study cohort included children’s hospitals only, and it is possible that care at nonchildren’s hospitals for asthma differs. PHIS dataset used in this study does not allow determination of where and when IV magnesium was given, the severity of asthma exacerbation, or the chronicity of baseline disease. Moreover, PHIS hospitals include centers in large cities, and other competing children’s hospitals may provide other tertiary care that could affect the readmission data calculation. Lastly, the temporal associations between IV magnesium use and outcomes reported in this study should not be used as evidence or lack of evidence for the effectiveness of magnesium given the limitations of the observational study design and dataset used.

In conclusion, IV magnesium use in management of asthma exacerbation in children across the United States has significantly increased. The increase occurred disproportionately in high-volume hospitals and was not associated with changes in admission rate, ICU admission rate, or 7-day all-cause readmission rate, although LOS has decreased over time.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article or conflicts of interest to disclose. 

This paper was a platform presentation at annual meetings of Pediatric Academic Societies 2019; accepted for presentation at annual meeting of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, July 2019.

Funding Source

No funding was secured for this study. 

References

1. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program, Third Expert Panel on the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Bethesda, Maryland: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7232/.
2. Griffiths B, Kew KM. Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating children with acute asthma in the emergency department. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4(4):CD011050. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011050.pub2.
3. Shan Z, Rong Y, Yang W, et al. Intravenous and nebulized magnesium sulfate for treating acute asthma in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Med. 2013;107(3):321-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.med.2012.12.001.
4. Rower J, Liu X, Yu T, Mundorff M, Sherwin C, Johnson M. Clinical pharmacokinetics of magnesium sulfate in treatment of children with severe acute asthma. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73(3):325-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-016-2165-3.
5. Desanti R, Agasthya N, Hunter K, Hussain M. The effectiveness of magnesium sulfate for status asthmaticus outside intensive care unit. Pediatric Pulmonol. 2018;53(7):866-871. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.24013.Epub 2018.
6. Schuh S, Macias C, Freedman S, et al. North American practice patterns of intravenous magnesium sulfate in severe acute asthma exacerbations. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(11):1189-1196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00913.x.
7. Cheuk DK, Chau TC, Lee SL. A meta-analysis on intravenous magnesium sulphate for treating acute asthma. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(1):74-77. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.050005.
8. Lo HY, Messer A, Loveless J, et al. Discharging asthma patients on 3-hour β-agonist treatments: a quality improvement project. Hosp Pediatr. 2018;8(12):733-739. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2018-0072.
9. Magruder TG, Narayanan S, Walley S, et al. Improving inpatient asthma management: the implementation and evaluation of pediatric asthma clinical pathway. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2017;2(5);e041. https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000041.

References

1. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program, Third Expert Panel on the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Bethesda, Maryland: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2007. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7232/.
2. Griffiths B, Kew KM. Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating children with acute asthma in the emergency department. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4(4):CD011050. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011050.pub2.
3. Shan Z, Rong Y, Yang W, et al. Intravenous and nebulized magnesium sulfate for treating acute asthma in adults and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Med. 2013;107(3):321-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.med.2012.12.001.
4. Rower J, Liu X, Yu T, Mundorff M, Sherwin C, Johnson M. Clinical pharmacokinetics of magnesium sulfate in treatment of children with severe acute asthma. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;73(3):325-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-016-2165-3.
5. Desanti R, Agasthya N, Hunter K, Hussain M. The effectiveness of magnesium sulfate for status asthmaticus outside intensive care unit. Pediatric Pulmonol. 2018;53(7):866-871. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.24013.Epub 2018.
6. Schuh S, Macias C, Freedman S, et al. North American practice patterns of intravenous magnesium sulfate in severe acute asthma exacerbations. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(11):1189-1196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00913.x.
7. Cheuk DK, Chau TC, Lee SL. A meta-analysis on intravenous magnesium sulphate for treating acute asthma. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90(1):74-77. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.050005.
8. Lo HY, Messer A, Loveless J, et al. Discharging asthma patients on 3-hour β-agonist treatments: a quality improvement project. Hosp Pediatr. 2018;8(12):733-739. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2018-0072.
9. Magruder TG, Narayanan S, Walley S, et al. Improving inpatient asthma management: the implementation and evaluation of pediatric asthma clinical pathway. Pediatr Qual Saf. 2017;2(5);e041. https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000041.

Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 15(7)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 15(7)
Page Number
403-406. Published Online First June 17, 2020
Page Number
403-406. Published Online First June 17, 2020
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

©2020 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Vineeta Mittal, MD, MBA; Email: Vineeta.Mittal@UTSouthwestern.edu; Telephone: 214-456-5527; Twitter: @Vmittal.
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media
Media Files

Impact of the Choosing Wisely® Campaign Recommendations for Hospitalized Children on Clinical Practice: Trends from 2008 to 2017

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/25/2021 - 11:21

The Choosing Wisely® Campaign (CWC) was launched in 2012. This ongoing national initiative encourages conversations among patients and clinicians about the need —or the lack thereof—for frequent tests, treatments, and procedures in healthcare. More than 80 professional societies have developed short lists of evidence-based recommendations aimed at avoiding unnecessary, “low-value” care. More than 550 recommendations are currently available.1 The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Pediatric Committee published a list of five recommendations for the CWC in 2013.2

After seven years, the campaign has posted several success stories highlighting the increase in clinicians’ awareness about the recommendations. Several local, regional, and national initiatives and quality improvement (QI) projects have been inspired by the CWC and its tenants.1,3 However, limited research has been performed on the true impact of these recommendations on avoiding “low-value” services. A more comprehensive approach is required to “measure wisely” the impact of the campaign on bedside clinical practice.4 Stakeholders in healthcare value have been challenged to collaborate in creating high-impact lists of “low-value” interventions and designing effective tools to measure their impact on clinical practice and costs.5

We initially developed a report card with five metrics derived from the CWC-SHM pediatric recommendations to help individual institutions and group practices to measure their performance and benchmark their results with peers.6 The report card is available for hospital members of the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA).7

The current study analyzes the frequency of utilization and trends of five metrics included in the CHA/Pediatric Health Information System® (PHIS) CWC report card in tertiary children’s hospitals in the United States. We analyzed data from five years before and five years after the CWC-PHM recommendations were published in 2013. We hypothesize that the publication and dissemination of the CWC-PHM recommendations—the intervention—will result in either an immediate decrease in the use of the “low-value” services studied and/or a change in the trend of utilization over time.

METHODS

Study Design

We conducted an observational, longitudinal retrospective study aimed at evaluating the impact of the CWC-PHM recommendations on clinical practice in tertiary children’s hospitals in the US.

Study Population

The population included inpatient and observation stays for children aged 0-18 years admitted to the 36 children’s hospitals consistently providing data from 2008 to 2017 to the PHIS administrative database (CHA, Lenexa, Kansas). This database contains inpatient, emergency department, ambulatory, and observation encounter–level data from more than 50 not-for-profit, tertiary care pediatric hospitals and accounts for ~20% of all pediatric hospitalizations in the US every year.

 

 

A joint effort between the CHA and the participating hospitals ensures the quality of the data submitted, as previously described.8 These data are subjected to a routine quality check with each submission and within each report. Data were fully deidentified for this study. In total, 36 PHIS hospitals met the strict quality standards for inclusion of submitted data. The remaining hospitals were excluded because they did not have complete data or had incomplete billing information.

For external benchmarking purposes, PHIS participating hospitals provide encounter data, including demographics, diagnoses, and procedures (International Classification of Diseases versions 9 and 10).9,10 The transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 in the US took place during the study period. However, the CHA completed a process of translating and mapping all ICD-9 codes to every possible equivalent ICD-10 code in the PHIS database. Thus, the change from ICD-9 to ICD-10 should not have had any significant effect on population definition and data analytics, including trend analysis.

For each condition, the study population was divided into the following two cohorts for comparison of the trends: all admissions from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012 (before) and all admissions from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017 (after) the CWC-PHM recommendations were published.

This study was determined to be nonhuman subject research and was therefore exempted by Nicklaus Children’s Hospital Human Research Protection Program.

Outcomes

The outcomes for this study were the percentages of patients receiving the not-recommended “low-value” services targeted by the CWC-PHM recommendations. For this purpose, four of the five recommendations were translated into the following five metrics, operationalized in the PHIS database and displayed in the “Choosing Wisely” report card:6

1. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated asthma receiving chest radiograph (CXR).

2. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated bronchiolitis receiving CXR.

3. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated bronchiolitis receiving bronchodilators.

4. Percentage of patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) receiving systemic corticosteroids (relievers).

5. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux (GER) receiving acid suppressor therapy.

The fifth recommendation—limiting the use of continuous pulse oximetry unless the patient is receiving supplemental oxygen—could not be operationalized in the PHIS database because of inconsistent reporting of these resources.6

The resulting percentages represent nonadherence to the recommendations, suggesting overuse of the specific “low-value” intervention. As such, a decreasing trend over time is the desired direction of improvement.

The definition of “uncomplicated” conditions and the metrics are presented in Table 1. A complete list of the inclusion and exclusion criteria to define “uncomplicated” conditions and the complete list of the clinical translation codes used in PHIS to identify the “low-value” services are presented as an electronic supplement.

Statistical Analyses

We compared the demographic and clinical characteristics of the various cohorts before and after the release of the CWC-PHM recommendations—the intervention—using chi-square statistics. To assess the individual hospital-level trends over time for each measure, we modeled the patient-level data of each hospital using generalized linear mixed effects models with a binomial distribution. These models were adjusted for patient demographic and clinical factors that were found to be significantly different (P < .01) before and after the intervention on bivariate analyses. From these models, we generated adjusted estimates for the quarterly percentages for each hospital. We then conducted an interrupted time series (ITS) using these estimates to compare trends in the five years before (2008-2012) and five years after (2013-2017) the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations. For the ITS analysis, we used a generalized linear mixed effects model with the quarterly adjusted hospital-level utilization rates of “low-value” services for each cohort as the unit of analysis and a random intercept for each hospital. The model used an autoregressive(1) covariance structure to account for autocorrelation. The ITS allowed us to test our hypothesis by assessing the following two important features: (a) if a significant decrease occurred right after the CWC-PHM recommendations were published (level-change) and/or (b) if the intervention altered the secular trend (slope-change). All statistical analyses were performed using SAS v. 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), and P values <.01 were considered to be statistically significant.

 

 

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the cohorts before (2008-2012) and after (2013-2017) the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations. Hospitalizations due to asthma represented the largest cohort with 142,067 cases, followed by hospitalizations due to bronchiolitis with 94,253 cases. Hospitalizations due to GER comprised the smallest cohort with 13,635 cases. Most of the children had government insurance and had “minor” severity according to the All Patient Revised Diagnosis Related Group (APR-DRG) system.

We found statistically significant differences in most of the demographic characteristics for the cohorts when comparing cases before and after the introduction of the CWC-PHM recommendations.

After adjusting for demographic characteristics, we estimated the percentages of the utilization of the “low-value” services from 2008 to 2017. We observed a steady decrease in overutilization of all services over time. The absolute percentage decrease was more evident in the reduction of the utilization of relievers by 36.6% and that of CXR by 31.5% for bronchiolitis. We also observed a 20.8% absolute reduction in the use of CXR for asthma.

The use of systemic steroids in LRTI revealed the lowest utilization among the “low-value” services studied, with 15.1% in 2008 and 12.2% in 2017, a 2.9% absolute reduction. However, the prescription of acid suppressors for GER showed the highest utilization among all the overuse metrics studied, ie, 63% in 2008 and 48.9% in 2017, with an absolute decrease of 24.1%. The yearly adjusted estimated percentages of utilization for each “low-value” service are presented in Appendix Table A.

Table 3 and the Figure (attached as supplemental online graphic) respectively present the risk-adjusted ITS parameter estimates and the graphic representation before and after the inception of the CWC-PHM recommendations for the trend analysis.



During the five years preceding the intervention (2008-2012), a statistically significant decrease (P < .01) was already noted in the trend of utilization of relievers and CXR in bronchiolitis and CXR in asthma. However, we found no significant change in the trend of the use of systemic corticosteroids in cases with LRTI or the use of acid suppression therapy for GER.

The immediate effect of the intervention is represented by the level change. We found a statistically significant (P < .01) reduction according to the CWC-PHM recommendations only for the use of CXR in hospitalized children with uncomplicated asthma.

During the five years after the CWC-PHM recommendations were published (2013-2017), a sustained, significant decrease in the trend of the use of CXR in asthma and bronchiolitis and the use of relievers in bronchiolitis (P < .01) was observed. However, there was no significant change in the trend of the use of systemic corticosteroids in cases with LRTI or in the use of acid suppression therapy for GER during this period.

Comparison of the trends before and after the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations revealed that only the decreasing trend in the use of relievers for bronchiolitis over time significantly correlated with the campaign (P < .01).

DISCUSSION

We found a steady reduction in the frequency of overutilization of five “low-value” services described in the CWC-PHM recommendations from 2008 to 2017 in 36 tertiary children’s hospitals in the US. This trend was more evident in the utilization of relievers and CXR for bronchiolitis. The ITS analysis demonstrated that immediately after the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations, only the use of CXR for asthma decreased significantly. Then, only the use of relievers for bronchiolitis decreased significantly over time in comparison with the secular trend.

 

 

These results support our hypothesis for two of the five metrics studied, suggesting that the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations had a modest impact in clinical practices related to those services in tertiary children’s hospitals.

These findings align with a limited number of published studies that have consistently found a modest decrease in the use of “low-value” services before 201211-13 and a limited impact of the CWC in clinical practices on the use of “low-value” services after the inception of the campaign.14-17

For instance, in a cross-sectional analysis of the 1999 and 2009 samples of ambulatory care practices in the US, only two of 11 overuse quality indicators showed improvement.11 The authors recognized that reducing inappropriate care will require the same attention to guideline development and performance measurement that was directed at reducing the underuse of needed therapies. However, determining whether a patient received inappropriate care generally requires a much more detailed analysis of clinical information than what is required for assessments of underuse.11

Another study designed claims-based algorithms to measure the prevalence of 11 Choosing Wisely-identified “low-value” services in fee-for-service Medicare patients aged >65 years from 2006 to 2011.12 The annual prevalence of selected CWC “low-value” services ranged from 1.2% (upper urinary tract imaging in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia) to 46.5% (preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk, noncardiac procedures). The study concluded that identifying and measuring “low-value” health services is a prerequisite for improving quality and eliminating waste.12

In pediatric medicine, the authors investigated a large cohort of infants aged one to 24 months hospitalized with bronchiolitis to 41 tertiary children’s hospitals reporting data to the PHIS database from 2004 to 2012.13 The trend analysis revealed a decrease in the utilization of diagnostics and treatment interventions before the publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics 2006 Bronchiolitis Guidelines.18 There was an additional reduction in the use of CXR, steroids, and bronchodilators after the publication of the guidelines.13

After the CWC was launched in 2012, several surveys have demonstrated a tangible increase in awareness of the CWC and its goals, mostly among primary care physicians and subspecialists. Clinicians who were aware of the campaign found the recommendations to be useful as a legitimate source of guidance and were more likely to reduce the indication of unnecessary care and “low-value” clinical services included in the CWC.1,3,19,20

Few studies in adults have focused on measuring the trends in overuse metrics derived from the CWC recommendations.14-16 The initial studies have found limited reduction on the use of “low-value” care after the inception of the CWC. They suggest that clinician education, awareness, and public promotion alone do not appear to be sufficient to achieve widespread changes in clinical practice. Additional interventions are necessary for the wider implementation and success of the CWC recommendations.11,14,15,19,21,22

However, a more recent study was conducted in 91 academic centers from 2013 through 2016, before and after the publication of a CWC recommendation on the use of troponin-only testing for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Hospitals with low rates of troponin-only testing before the publication of the recommendation demonstrated a statistically significant increase over time in the rate of adherence. The authors postulated that the impact of the CWC might have been significant because of the increase in the institutional and provider attention to “high-value” care as a result of the campaign.16

In pediatrics, a cross-sectional study defined 20 “low-value” services from a list of more than 400 items from the CWC and other sources of highly regarded, evidence-based pediatrics healthcare recommendations. The list included six diagnostic tests, five imaging tests, and nine prescription drugs ordered in a robust cohort of 4.4 million children nationwide in 2014. The study concluded that approximately one in 10 children received a “low-value” service. The majority (59.4%) were related to prescription drugs, specifically the inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of conditions. The estimated combined cost of these unnecessary services was approximately $27 million, with one-third of the cost being paid out of pocket, arguing for significant financial harm. However, this study did not perform a trend analysis.17

Our results are comparable with these studies, reporting an initial increase in awareness and beliefs, followed by progressive changes in clinical practice among pediatric hospital-based clinicians in delivering evidence-based, high-value care after the CWC.

The attribution of the steady reduction in the absolute percentages of overuse/waste in the five metrics related to the CWC observed in this study, including the significant changes noted in two of the overuse indicators after the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations, should be interpreted with caution. For example, the significant decrease in the use of “low-value” services in bronchiolitis could be attributed to multiple factors such as national guidelines released in 2014 after the campaign,23 national multicenter QI collaborative projects,24,25 and multiple local QI efforts.26,27 The increase in the awareness and impact of the CWC recommendations among pediatric providers could also be a contributing factor, but this association cannot be established in the light of our findings.

On the other hand, despite extensive evidence for the lack of efficacy and the potential harm associated with the use of acid suppressors for uncomplicated GER in infants,28-30 the frequency of this “low-value” therapeutic intervention remains high (~50%). The trend in utilization was not impacted by the CWC-PHM recommendations. This finding could be explained by several factors, including the possibility that several hospitalized patients may suffer from GER disease requiring acid suppressors. Another possibility is that acid suppressors are generally prescribed as an outpatient medication, and physicians treating inpatients may be reluctant to discontinue it during hospitalization. Nevertheless, this recommendation represents a target for review, update, and QI interventions in the near future.

The delivery of inappropriate “low-value” care represents the most significant dimension of waste in healthcare.31 The development of quality measures of “low-value” services representing overuse and waste is the most needed step toward assessing the magnitude of the problem. Overuse metrics could be incorporated into QI interventions to decrease the provision of such services. However, systematic efforts aimed at developing quality indicators of overuse based on the CWC recommendations have been limited. To our knowledge, this is the first study on the trends of metrics derived from the CWC recommendations in pediatric medicine.

Future research is needed to develop overuse metrics further to assess the specific outcomes related to the implementation of the CWC. How much has clinical practice changed as a result of the campaign? What are the outcomes and savings attributable to these efforts? These are critical questions for the immediate future that should be answered to sustain the ongoing efforts and results and to validate that the efforts are worthwhile.

This study has several limitations. First, this is a retrospective and observational study. It cannot prove a direct causal relationship between the publication of the CWC-PHM and the observed trends, as other potential factors may have contributed to the outcomes. Second, in administrative databases, the data quality is dependent on proper documentation and coding that may vary among reporting institutions. These data lack clinical information, and a fair assessment of “appropriateness” could be questioned. In addition, the study included only 36 academic, tertiary children’s hospitals. Because approximately two-thirds of all pediatric hospitalizations in the US occur in community settings,32 this study may not fully represent clinical practice in the majority of pediatric hospitalizations in the US. Finally, the validity of the ITS analysis has inherent limitations due to the variability of the data in some metrics that may affect the power of the analysis. This fact could lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding intervention effectiveness due to the data-driven model applied, as well as the lack of control for other time-varying confounders.33

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

After seven years, the CWC faces important challenges. Critical to the success of the campaign is to “measure wisely” by developing quality indicators of overuse and operationalizing them into administrative and clinical data sources to assess the impact on clinical practice. Our study highlights some limited but steady reduction in the use of some “low-value” services before the campaign. It also demonstrates a modest impact of the campaign on clinical practices in tertiary care children’s hospitals in the US. Clinicians and institutions still have a long way to go in reducing the use of “low-value” interventions in pediatric medicine. These observations challenge us to step up our efforts to implement QI interventions aimed at incorporating these professional, society-endorsed recommendations into our clinical practice.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Kristine De La Torre and Dr. Jennifer McCafferty-Fernandez and the Research Institute of Nicklaus Children’s Hospital for medical writing assistance. They also acknowledge Tatiana Consuegra, library technician, for her clerical assistance in the preparation and submission of this article.

Files
References

1. Choosing Wisely. Choosing Wisely Campaign Official Site. http://www.choosingwisely.org/. Accessed May 2019.
2. Quinonez RA, Garber MD, Schroeder AR, et al. Choosing wisely in pediatric hospital medicine: five opportunities for improved healthcare value. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(9):479-485. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2064.
3. ABIM Foundation CR. Choosing Wisely: A Special Report on the First Five Years. http://www.choosingwisely.org/choosing-wisely-a-special-report-on-the-first-five-years/. Updated 2017. Accessed May 2019.
4. Wolfson D, Santa J, Slass L. Engaging physicians and consumers in conversations about treatment overuse and waste: a short history of the choosing wisely campaign. Acad Med. 2014;89(7):990-995. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000270.
5. Morden NE, Colla CH, Sequist TD, Rosenthal MB. Choosing wisely—the politics and economics of labeling low-value services. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(7):589-592. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1314965.
6. Reyes M, Paulus E, Hronek C, et al. Choosing wisely campaign: Report card and achievable benchmarks of care for children’s hospitals. Hosp Pediatr. 2017;7(11):633-641. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2017-0029.
7. Report Cards. Choosing Wisely Measures - Pediatric Hospital Medicine Detail Reports. Children’s Hospital Association Web site. https://www.childrenshospitals.org/. Accessed May 2019.
8. Mongelluzzo J, Mohamad Z, Ten Have TR, Shah SS. Corticosteroids and mortality in children with bacterial meningitis. JAMA. 2008;299(17):2048-2055. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.17.2048.
9. Buck CJ. 2013 ICD 9 CM for Physicians, Volumes 1 & 2. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2013.
10. Buck CJ. 2018 ICD-10-CM for Physicians. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2018.
11. Kale MS, Bishop TF, Federman AD, Keyhani S. Trends in the overuse of ambulatory health care services in the United States. JAMA Inter Med. 2013;173(2):142-148. https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1022.
12. Colla CH, Morden NE, Sequist TD, Schpero WL, Rosenthal MB. Choosing wisely: Prevalence and correlates of low-value health care services in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(2):221-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3070-z
13. Parikh K, Hall M, Teach SJ. Bronchiolitis management before and after the AAP guidelines. Pediatrics. 2014;133(1): e1-7. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2005.
14. Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the Choosing Wisely campaign. JAMA Inter Med. 2015;175(12):1913-1920. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.
15. Reid RO, Rabideau B, Sood N. Low-value health care services in a commercially insured population. JAMA Inter Med. 2016;176(10):1567-1571. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5031.
16. Prochaska MT, Hohmann SF, Modes M, Arora VM. Trends in troponin-only testing for AMI in academic teaching hospitals and the impact of choosing wisely(R). J Hosp Med. 2017;12(12):957-962. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2846.
17. Chua KP, Schwartz AL, Volerman A, Conti RM, Huang ES. Use of low-value pediatric services among the commercially insured. Pediatrics. 2016;138(6):e20161809. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1809.
18. American Academy of Pediatrics Subcommittee on Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis. Diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1774-1793.
19. Colla CH, Kinsella EA, Morden NE, Meyers DJ, Rosenthal MB, Sequist TD. Physician perceptions of Choosing Wisely and drivers of overuse. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(5):337-343.
20. PerryUndem Research/Communication AF. DataBrief: Findings from a National Survey of Physicians. http://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Summary-Research-Report-Survey-2017.pdf. Updated 2017.
21. Wolfson D. Choosing wisely recommendations using administrative claims data. JAMA Inter Med. 2016;176(4):565. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0357.
22. Heekin AM, Kontor J, Sax HC, Keller M, Wellington A, Weingarten S. Choosing wisely clinical decision support adherence and associated patient outcomes. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24(8):361-366.
23. Ralston SL, Lieberthal AS, Meissner HC, et al. Clinical practice guideline: the diagnosis, management, and prevention of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2014;134(5):e1474-e502. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-2742.
24. Ralston SL, Garber MD, Rice-Conboy E, et al. A multicenter collaborative to reduce unnecessary care in inpatient bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):e20150851. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0851.
25. Mussman GM, Lossius M, Wasif F, et al. Multisite emergency department inpatient collaborative to reduce unnecessary bronchiolitis care. Pediatrics. 2018;141(2):e20170830. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0830.
26. Mittal V, Hall M, Morse R, et al. Impact of inpatient bronchiolitis clinical practice guideline implementation on testing and treatment. J Pediatr. 2014;165(3):570-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.05.021.
27. Tyler A, Krack P, Bakel LA, et al. Interventions to reduce over-utilized tests and treatments in bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6):e20170485. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0485.
28. Rosen R, Vandenplas Y, Singendonk M, et al. Pediatric gastroesophageal reflux clinical practice guidelines: joint recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;66(3):516-554. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181b7f563.
29. Eichenwald EC, COMMITTEE ON FETUS AND NEWBORN. Diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2018;142(1):e20181061. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1061
30. van der Pol RJ, Smits MJ, van Wijk MP, Omari TI, Tabbers MM, Benninga MA. Efficacy of proton-pump inhibitors in children with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2011;127(5):925-935. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2719.
31. IOM Report: Estimated $750B Wasted Annually In Health Care System. Kaiser Health News Web site. https://khn.org/morning-breakout/iom-report/. Updated 2012. Accessed May 2019.
32. Leyenaar JK, Ralston SL, Shieh M, Pekow PS, Mangione‐Smith R, Lindenauer PK. Epidemiology of pediatric hospitalizations at general hospitals and freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(11):743-749. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2624.
33. Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(1):348-355. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

1Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hospital Medicine, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, Miami, Florida; 2Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas; 3Florida International University, Miami, Florida; 4New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York; 5Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Funding

No funding was secured for this study.

Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 15(2)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
68-74. Published online first September 18, 2019
Sections
Files
Files
Author and Disclosure Information

1Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hospital Medicine, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, Miami, Florida; 2Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas; 3Florida International University, Miami, Florida; 4New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York; 5Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Funding

No funding was secured for this study.

Author and Disclosure Information

1Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hospital Medicine, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, Miami, Florida; 2Children’s Hospital Association, Lenexa, Kansas; 3Florida International University, Miami, Florida; 4New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York; 5Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Funding

No funding was secured for this study.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

The Choosing Wisely® Campaign (CWC) was launched in 2012. This ongoing national initiative encourages conversations among patients and clinicians about the need —or the lack thereof—for frequent tests, treatments, and procedures in healthcare. More than 80 professional societies have developed short lists of evidence-based recommendations aimed at avoiding unnecessary, “low-value” care. More than 550 recommendations are currently available.1 The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Pediatric Committee published a list of five recommendations for the CWC in 2013.2

After seven years, the campaign has posted several success stories highlighting the increase in clinicians’ awareness about the recommendations. Several local, regional, and national initiatives and quality improvement (QI) projects have been inspired by the CWC and its tenants.1,3 However, limited research has been performed on the true impact of these recommendations on avoiding “low-value” services. A more comprehensive approach is required to “measure wisely” the impact of the campaign on bedside clinical practice.4 Stakeholders in healthcare value have been challenged to collaborate in creating high-impact lists of “low-value” interventions and designing effective tools to measure their impact on clinical practice and costs.5

We initially developed a report card with five metrics derived from the CWC-SHM pediatric recommendations to help individual institutions and group practices to measure their performance and benchmark their results with peers.6 The report card is available for hospital members of the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA).7

The current study analyzes the frequency of utilization and trends of five metrics included in the CHA/Pediatric Health Information System® (PHIS) CWC report card in tertiary children’s hospitals in the United States. We analyzed data from five years before and five years after the CWC-PHM recommendations were published in 2013. We hypothesize that the publication and dissemination of the CWC-PHM recommendations—the intervention—will result in either an immediate decrease in the use of the “low-value” services studied and/or a change in the trend of utilization over time.

METHODS

Study Design

We conducted an observational, longitudinal retrospective study aimed at evaluating the impact of the CWC-PHM recommendations on clinical practice in tertiary children’s hospitals in the US.

Study Population

The population included inpatient and observation stays for children aged 0-18 years admitted to the 36 children’s hospitals consistently providing data from 2008 to 2017 to the PHIS administrative database (CHA, Lenexa, Kansas). This database contains inpatient, emergency department, ambulatory, and observation encounter–level data from more than 50 not-for-profit, tertiary care pediatric hospitals and accounts for ~20% of all pediatric hospitalizations in the US every year.

 

 

A joint effort between the CHA and the participating hospitals ensures the quality of the data submitted, as previously described.8 These data are subjected to a routine quality check with each submission and within each report. Data were fully deidentified for this study. In total, 36 PHIS hospitals met the strict quality standards for inclusion of submitted data. The remaining hospitals were excluded because they did not have complete data or had incomplete billing information.

For external benchmarking purposes, PHIS participating hospitals provide encounter data, including demographics, diagnoses, and procedures (International Classification of Diseases versions 9 and 10).9,10 The transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 in the US took place during the study period. However, the CHA completed a process of translating and mapping all ICD-9 codes to every possible equivalent ICD-10 code in the PHIS database. Thus, the change from ICD-9 to ICD-10 should not have had any significant effect on population definition and data analytics, including trend analysis.

For each condition, the study population was divided into the following two cohorts for comparison of the trends: all admissions from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012 (before) and all admissions from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017 (after) the CWC-PHM recommendations were published.

This study was determined to be nonhuman subject research and was therefore exempted by Nicklaus Children’s Hospital Human Research Protection Program.

Outcomes

The outcomes for this study were the percentages of patients receiving the not-recommended “low-value” services targeted by the CWC-PHM recommendations. For this purpose, four of the five recommendations were translated into the following five metrics, operationalized in the PHIS database and displayed in the “Choosing Wisely” report card:6

1. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated asthma receiving chest radiograph (CXR).

2. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated bronchiolitis receiving CXR.

3. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated bronchiolitis receiving bronchodilators.

4. Percentage of patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) receiving systemic corticosteroids (relievers).

5. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux (GER) receiving acid suppressor therapy.

The fifth recommendation—limiting the use of continuous pulse oximetry unless the patient is receiving supplemental oxygen—could not be operationalized in the PHIS database because of inconsistent reporting of these resources.6

The resulting percentages represent nonadherence to the recommendations, suggesting overuse of the specific “low-value” intervention. As such, a decreasing trend over time is the desired direction of improvement.

The definition of “uncomplicated” conditions and the metrics are presented in Table 1. A complete list of the inclusion and exclusion criteria to define “uncomplicated” conditions and the complete list of the clinical translation codes used in PHIS to identify the “low-value” services are presented as an electronic supplement.

Statistical Analyses

We compared the demographic and clinical characteristics of the various cohorts before and after the release of the CWC-PHM recommendations—the intervention—using chi-square statistics. To assess the individual hospital-level trends over time for each measure, we modeled the patient-level data of each hospital using generalized linear mixed effects models with a binomial distribution. These models were adjusted for patient demographic and clinical factors that were found to be significantly different (P < .01) before and after the intervention on bivariate analyses. From these models, we generated adjusted estimates for the quarterly percentages for each hospital. We then conducted an interrupted time series (ITS) using these estimates to compare trends in the five years before (2008-2012) and five years after (2013-2017) the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations. For the ITS analysis, we used a generalized linear mixed effects model with the quarterly adjusted hospital-level utilization rates of “low-value” services for each cohort as the unit of analysis and a random intercept for each hospital. The model used an autoregressive(1) covariance structure to account for autocorrelation. The ITS allowed us to test our hypothesis by assessing the following two important features: (a) if a significant decrease occurred right after the CWC-PHM recommendations were published (level-change) and/or (b) if the intervention altered the secular trend (slope-change). All statistical analyses were performed using SAS v. 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), and P values <.01 were considered to be statistically significant.

 

 

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the cohorts before (2008-2012) and after (2013-2017) the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations. Hospitalizations due to asthma represented the largest cohort with 142,067 cases, followed by hospitalizations due to bronchiolitis with 94,253 cases. Hospitalizations due to GER comprised the smallest cohort with 13,635 cases. Most of the children had government insurance and had “minor” severity according to the All Patient Revised Diagnosis Related Group (APR-DRG) system.

We found statistically significant differences in most of the demographic characteristics for the cohorts when comparing cases before and after the introduction of the CWC-PHM recommendations.

After adjusting for demographic characteristics, we estimated the percentages of the utilization of the “low-value” services from 2008 to 2017. We observed a steady decrease in overutilization of all services over time. The absolute percentage decrease was more evident in the reduction of the utilization of relievers by 36.6% and that of CXR by 31.5% for bronchiolitis. We also observed a 20.8% absolute reduction in the use of CXR for asthma.

The use of systemic steroids in LRTI revealed the lowest utilization among the “low-value” services studied, with 15.1% in 2008 and 12.2% in 2017, a 2.9% absolute reduction. However, the prescription of acid suppressors for GER showed the highest utilization among all the overuse metrics studied, ie, 63% in 2008 and 48.9% in 2017, with an absolute decrease of 24.1%. The yearly adjusted estimated percentages of utilization for each “low-value” service are presented in Appendix Table A.

Table 3 and the Figure (attached as supplemental online graphic) respectively present the risk-adjusted ITS parameter estimates and the graphic representation before and after the inception of the CWC-PHM recommendations for the trend analysis.



During the five years preceding the intervention (2008-2012), a statistically significant decrease (P < .01) was already noted in the trend of utilization of relievers and CXR in bronchiolitis and CXR in asthma. However, we found no significant change in the trend of the use of systemic corticosteroids in cases with LRTI or the use of acid suppression therapy for GER.

The immediate effect of the intervention is represented by the level change. We found a statistically significant (P < .01) reduction according to the CWC-PHM recommendations only for the use of CXR in hospitalized children with uncomplicated asthma.

During the five years after the CWC-PHM recommendations were published (2013-2017), a sustained, significant decrease in the trend of the use of CXR in asthma and bronchiolitis and the use of relievers in bronchiolitis (P < .01) was observed. However, there was no significant change in the trend of the use of systemic corticosteroids in cases with LRTI or in the use of acid suppression therapy for GER during this period.

Comparison of the trends before and after the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations revealed that only the decreasing trend in the use of relievers for bronchiolitis over time significantly correlated with the campaign (P < .01).

DISCUSSION

We found a steady reduction in the frequency of overutilization of five “low-value” services described in the CWC-PHM recommendations from 2008 to 2017 in 36 tertiary children’s hospitals in the US. This trend was more evident in the utilization of relievers and CXR for bronchiolitis. The ITS analysis demonstrated that immediately after the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations, only the use of CXR for asthma decreased significantly. Then, only the use of relievers for bronchiolitis decreased significantly over time in comparison with the secular trend.

 

 

These results support our hypothesis for two of the five metrics studied, suggesting that the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations had a modest impact in clinical practices related to those services in tertiary children’s hospitals.

These findings align with a limited number of published studies that have consistently found a modest decrease in the use of “low-value” services before 201211-13 and a limited impact of the CWC in clinical practices on the use of “low-value” services after the inception of the campaign.14-17

For instance, in a cross-sectional analysis of the 1999 and 2009 samples of ambulatory care practices in the US, only two of 11 overuse quality indicators showed improvement.11 The authors recognized that reducing inappropriate care will require the same attention to guideline development and performance measurement that was directed at reducing the underuse of needed therapies. However, determining whether a patient received inappropriate care generally requires a much more detailed analysis of clinical information than what is required for assessments of underuse.11

Another study designed claims-based algorithms to measure the prevalence of 11 Choosing Wisely-identified “low-value” services in fee-for-service Medicare patients aged >65 years from 2006 to 2011.12 The annual prevalence of selected CWC “low-value” services ranged from 1.2% (upper urinary tract imaging in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia) to 46.5% (preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk, noncardiac procedures). The study concluded that identifying and measuring “low-value” health services is a prerequisite for improving quality and eliminating waste.12

In pediatric medicine, the authors investigated a large cohort of infants aged one to 24 months hospitalized with bronchiolitis to 41 tertiary children’s hospitals reporting data to the PHIS database from 2004 to 2012.13 The trend analysis revealed a decrease in the utilization of diagnostics and treatment interventions before the publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics 2006 Bronchiolitis Guidelines.18 There was an additional reduction in the use of CXR, steroids, and bronchodilators after the publication of the guidelines.13

After the CWC was launched in 2012, several surveys have demonstrated a tangible increase in awareness of the CWC and its goals, mostly among primary care physicians and subspecialists. Clinicians who were aware of the campaign found the recommendations to be useful as a legitimate source of guidance and were more likely to reduce the indication of unnecessary care and “low-value” clinical services included in the CWC.1,3,19,20

Few studies in adults have focused on measuring the trends in overuse metrics derived from the CWC recommendations.14-16 The initial studies have found limited reduction on the use of “low-value” care after the inception of the CWC. They suggest that clinician education, awareness, and public promotion alone do not appear to be sufficient to achieve widespread changes in clinical practice. Additional interventions are necessary for the wider implementation and success of the CWC recommendations.11,14,15,19,21,22

However, a more recent study was conducted in 91 academic centers from 2013 through 2016, before and after the publication of a CWC recommendation on the use of troponin-only testing for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Hospitals with low rates of troponin-only testing before the publication of the recommendation demonstrated a statistically significant increase over time in the rate of adherence. The authors postulated that the impact of the CWC might have been significant because of the increase in the institutional and provider attention to “high-value” care as a result of the campaign.16

In pediatrics, a cross-sectional study defined 20 “low-value” services from a list of more than 400 items from the CWC and other sources of highly regarded, evidence-based pediatrics healthcare recommendations. The list included six diagnostic tests, five imaging tests, and nine prescription drugs ordered in a robust cohort of 4.4 million children nationwide in 2014. The study concluded that approximately one in 10 children received a “low-value” service. The majority (59.4%) were related to prescription drugs, specifically the inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of conditions. The estimated combined cost of these unnecessary services was approximately $27 million, with one-third of the cost being paid out of pocket, arguing for significant financial harm. However, this study did not perform a trend analysis.17

Our results are comparable with these studies, reporting an initial increase in awareness and beliefs, followed by progressive changes in clinical practice among pediatric hospital-based clinicians in delivering evidence-based, high-value care after the CWC.

The attribution of the steady reduction in the absolute percentages of overuse/waste in the five metrics related to the CWC observed in this study, including the significant changes noted in two of the overuse indicators after the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations, should be interpreted with caution. For example, the significant decrease in the use of “low-value” services in bronchiolitis could be attributed to multiple factors such as national guidelines released in 2014 after the campaign,23 national multicenter QI collaborative projects,24,25 and multiple local QI efforts.26,27 The increase in the awareness and impact of the CWC recommendations among pediatric providers could also be a contributing factor, but this association cannot be established in the light of our findings.

On the other hand, despite extensive evidence for the lack of efficacy and the potential harm associated with the use of acid suppressors for uncomplicated GER in infants,28-30 the frequency of this “low-value” therapeutic intervention remains high (~50%). The trend in utilization was not impacted by the CWC-PHM recommendations. This finding could be explained by several factors, including the possibility that several hospitalized patients may suffer from GER disease requiring acid suppressors. Another possibility is that acid suppressors are generally prescribed as an outpatient medication, and physicians treating inpatients may be reluctant to discontinue it during hospitalization. Nevertheless, this recommendation represents a target for review, update, and QI interventions in the near future.

The delivery of inappropriate “low-value” care represents the most significant dimension of waste in healthcare.31 The development of quality measures of “low-value” services representing overuse and waste is the most needed step toward assessing the magnitude of the problem. Overuse metrics could be incorporated into QI interventions to decrease the provision of such services. However, systematic efforts aimed at developing quality indicators of overuse based on the CWC recommendations have been limited. To our knowledge, this is the first study on the trends of metrics derived from the CWC recommendations in pediatric medicine.

Future research is needed to develop overuse metrics further to assess the specific outcomes related to the implementation of the CWC. How much has clinical practice changed as a result of the campaign? What are the outcomes and savings attributable to these efforts? These are critical questions for the immediate future that should be answered to sustain the ongoing efforts and results and to validate that the efforts are worthwhile.

This study has several limitations. First, this is a retrospective and observational study. It cannot prove a direct causal relationship between the publication of the CWC-PHM and the observed trends, as other potential factors may have contributed to the outcomes. Second, in administrative databases, the data quality is dependent on proper documentation and coding that may vary among reporting institutions. These data lack clinical information, and a fair assessment of “appropriateness” could be questioned. In addition, the study included only 36 academic, tertiary children’s hospitals. Because approximately two-thirds of all pediatric hospitalizations in the US occur in community settings,32 this study may not fully represent clinical practice in the majority of pediatric hospitalizations in the US. Finally, the validity of the ITS analysis has inherent limitations due to the variability of the data in some metrics that may affect the power of the analysis. This fact could lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding intervention effectiveness due to the data-driven model applied, as well as the lack of control for other time-varying confounders.33

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

After seven years, the CWC faces important challenges. Critical to the success of the campaign is to “measure wisely” by developing quality indicators of overuse and operationalizing them into administrative and clinical data sources to assess the impact on clinical practice. Our study highlights some limited but steady reduction in the use of some “low-value” services before the campaign. It also demonstrates a modest impact of the campaign on clinical practices in tertiary care children’s hospitals in the US. Clinicians and institutions still have a long way to go in reducing the use of “low-value” interventions in pediatric medicine. These observations challenge us to step up our efforts to implement QI interventions aimed at incorporating these professional, society-endorsed recommendations into our clinical practice.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Kristine De La Torre and Dr. Jennifer McCafferty-Fernandez and the Research Institute of Nicklaus Children’s Hospital for medical writing assistance. They also acknowledge Tatiana Consuegra, library technician, for her clerical assistance in the preparation and submission of this article.

The Choosing Wisely® Campaign (CWC) was launched in 2012. This ongoing national initiative encourages conversations among patients and clinicians about the need —or the lack thereof—for frequent tests, treatments, and procedures in healthcare. More than 80 professional societies have developed short lists of evidence-based recommendations aimed at avoiding unnecessary, “low-value” care. More than 550 recommendations are currently available.1 The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Pediatric Committee published a list of five recommendations for the CWC in 2013.2

After seven years, the campaign has posted several success stories highlighting the increase in clinicians’ awareness about the recommendations. Several local, regional, and national initiatives and quality improvement (QI) projects have been inspired by the CWC and its tenants.1,3 However, limited research has been performed on the true impact of these recommendations on avoiding “low-value” services. A more comprehensive approach is required to “measure wisely” the impact of the campaign on bedside clinical practice.4 Stakeholders in healthcare value have been challenged to collaborate in creating high-impact lists of “low-value” interventions and designing effective tools to measure their impact on clinical practice and costs.5

We initially developed a report card with five metrics derived from the CWC-SHM pediatric recommendations to help individual institutions and group practices to measure their performance and benchmark their results with peers.6 The report card is available for hospital members of the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA).7

The current study analyzes the frequency of utilization and trends of five metrics included in the CHA/Pediatric Health Information System® (PHIS) CWC report card in tertiary children’s hospitals in the United States. We analyzed data from five years before and five years after the CWC-PHM recommendations were published in 2013. We hypothesize that the publication and dissemination of the CWC-PHM recommendations—the intervention—will result in either an immediate decrease in the use of the “low-value” services studied and/or a change in the trend of utilization over time.

METHODS

Study Design

We conducted an observational, longitudinal retrospective study aimed at evaluating the impact of the CWC-PHM recommendations on clinical practice in tertiary children’s hospitals in the US.

Study Population

The population included inpatient and observation stays for children aged 0-18 years admitted to the 36 children’s hospitals consistently providing data from 2008 to 2017 to the PHIS administrative database (CHA, Lenexa, Kansas). This database contains inpatient, emergency department, ambulatory, and observation encounter–level data from more than 50 not-for-profit, tertiary care pediatric hospitals and accounts for ~20% of all pediatric hospitalizations in the US every year.

 

 

A joint effort between the CHA and the participating hospitals ensures the quality of the data submitted, as previously described.8 These data are subjected to a routine quality check with each submission and within each report. Data were fully deidentified for this study. In total, 36 PHIS hospitals met the strict quality standards for inclusion of submitted data. The remaining hospitals were excluded because they did not have complete data or had incomplete billing information.

For external benchmarking purposes, PHIS participating hospitals provide encounter data, including demographics, diagnoses, and procedures (International Classification of Diseases versions 9 and 10).9,10 The transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 in the US took place during the study period. However, the CHA completed a process of translating and mapping all ICD-9 codes to every possible equivalent ICD-10 code in the PHIS database. Thus, the change from ICD-9 to ICD-10 should not have had any significant effect on population definition and data analytics, including trend analysis.

For each condition, the study population was divided into the following two cohorts for comparison of the trends: all admissions from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012 (before) and all admissions from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017 (after) the CWC-PHM recommendations were published.

This study was determined to be nonhuman subject research and was therefore exempted by Nicklaus Children’s Hospital Human Research Protection Program.

Outcomes

The outcomes for this study were the percentages of patients receiving the not-recommended “low-value” services targeted by the CWC-PHM recommendations. For this purpose, four of the five recommendations were translated into the following five metrics, operationalized in the PHIS database and displayed in the “Choosing Wisely” report card:6

1. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated asthma receiving chest radiograph (CXR).

2. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated bronchiolitis receiving CXR.

3. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated bronchiolitis receiving bronchodilators.

4. Percentage of patients with lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) receiving systemic corticosteroids (relievers).

5. Percentage of patients with uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux (GER) receiving acid suppressor therapy.

The fifth recommendation—limiting the use of continuous pulse oximetry unless the patient is receiving supplemental oxygen—could not be operationalized in the PHIS database because of inconsistent reporting of these resources.6

The resulting percentages represent nonadherence to the recommendations, suggesting overuse of the specific “low-value” intervention. As such, a decreasing trend over time is the desired direction of improvement.

The definition of “uncomplicated” conditions and the metrics are presented in Table 1. A complete list of the inclusion and exclusion criteria to define “uncomplicated” conditions and the complete list of the clinical translation codes used in PHIS to identify the “low-value” services are presented as an electronic supplement.

Statistical Analyses

We compared the demographic and clinical characteristics of the various cohorts before and after the release of the CWC-PHM recommendations—the intervention—using chi-square statistics. To assess the individual hospital-level trends over time for each measure, we modeled the patient-level data of each hospital using generalized linear mixed effects models with a binomial distribution. These models were adjusted for patient demographic and clinical factors that were found to be significantly different (P < .01) before and after the intervention on bivariate analyses. From these models, we generated adjusted estimates for the quarterly percentages for each hospital. We then conducted an interrupted time series (ITS) using these estimates to compare trends in the five years before (2008-2012) and five years after (2013-2017) the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations. For the ITS analysis, we used a generalized linear mixed effects model with the quarterly adjusted hospital-level utilization rates of “low-value” services for each cohort as the unit of analysis and a random intercept for each hospital. The model used an autoregressive(1) covariance structure to account for autocorrelation. The ITS allowed us to test our hypothesis by assessing the following two important features: (a) if a significant decrease occurred right after the CWC-PHM recommendations were published (level-change) and/or (b) if the intervention altered the secular trend (slope-change). All statistical analyses were performed using SAS v. 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina), and P values <.01 were considered to be statistically significant.

 

 

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the cohorts before (2008-2012) and after (2013-2017) the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations. Hospitalizations due to asthma represented the largest cohort with 142,067 cases, followed by hospitalizations due to bronchiolitis with 94,253 cases. Hospitalizations due to GER comprised the smallest cohort with 13,635 cases. Most of the children had government insurance and had “minor” severity according to the All Patient Revised Diagnosis Related Group (APR-DRG) system.

We found statistically significant differences in most of the demographic characteristics for the cohorts when comparing cases before and after the introduction of the CWC-PHM recommendations.

After adjusting for demographic characteristics, we estimated the percentages of the utilization of the “low-value” services from 2008 to 2017. We observed a steady decrease in overutilization of all services over time. The absolute percentage decrease was more evident in the reduction of the utilization of relievers by 36.6% and that of CXR by 31.5% for bronchiolitis. We also observed a 20.8% absolute reduction in the use of CXR for asthma.

The use of systemic steroids in LRTI revealed the lowest utilization among the “low-value” services studied, with 15.1% in 2008 and 12.2% in 2017, a 2.9% absolute reduction. However, the prescription of acid suppressors for GER showed the highest utilization among all the overuse metrics studied, ie, 63% in 2008 and 48.9% in 2017, with an absolute decrease of 24.1%. The yearly adjusted estimated percentages of utilization for each “low-value” service are presented in Appendix Table A.

Table 3 and the Figure (attached as supplemental online graphic) respectively present the risk-adjusted ITS parameter estimates and the graphic representation before and after the inception of the CWC-PHM recommendations for the trend analysis.



During the five years preceding the intervention (2008-2012), a statistically significant decrease (P < .01) was already noted in the trend of utilization of relievers and CXR in bronchiolitis and CXR in asthma. However, we found no significant change in the trend of the use of systemic corticosteroids in cases with LRTI or the use of acid suppression therapy for GER.

The immediate effect of the intervention is represented by the level change. We found a statistically significant (P < .01) reduction according to the CWC-PHM recommendations only for the use of CXR in hospitalized children with uncomplicated asthma.

During the five years after the CWC-PHM recommendations were published (2013-2017), a sustained, significant decrease in the trend of the use of CXR in asthma and bronchiolitis and the use of relievers in bronchiolitis (P < .01) was observed. However, there was no significant change in the trend of the use of systemic corticosteroids in cases with LRTI or in the use of acid suppression therapy for GER during this period.

Comparison of the trends before and after the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations revealed that only the decreasing trend in the use of relievers for bronchiolitis over time significantly correlated with the campaign (P < .01).

DISCUSSION

We found a steady reduction in the frequency of overutilization of five “low-value” services described in the CWC-PHM recommendations from 2008 to 2017 in 36 tertiary children’s hospitals in the US. This trend was more evident in the utilization of relievers and CXR for bronchiolitis. The ITS analysis demonstrated that immediately after the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations, only the use of CXR for asthma decreased significantly. Then, only the use of relievers for bronchiolitis decreased significantly over time in comparison with the secular trend.

 

 

These results support our hypothesis for two of the five metrics studied, suggesting that the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations had a modest impact in clinical practices related to those services in tertiary children’s hospitals.

These findings align with a limited number of published studies that have consistently found a modest decrease in the use of “low-value” services before 201211-13 and a limited impact of the CWC in clinical practices on the use of “low-value” services after the inception of the campaign.14-17

For instance, in a cross-sectional analysis of the 1999 and 2009 samples of ambulatory care practices in the US, only two of 11 overuse quality indicators showed improvement.11 The authors recognized that reducing inappropriate care will require the same attention to guideline development and performance measurement that was directed at reducing the underuse of needed therapies. However, determining whether a patient received inappropriate care generally requires a much more detailed analysis of clinical information than what is required for assessments of underuse.11

Another study designed claims-based algorithms to measure the prevalence of 11 Choosing Wisely-identified “low-value” services in fee-for-service Medicare patients aged >65 years from 2006 to 2011.12 The annual prevalence of selected CWC “low-value” services ranged from 1.2% (upper urinary tract imaging in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia) to 46.5% (preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk, noncardiac procedures). The study concluded that identifying and measuring “low-value” health services is a prerequisite for improving quality and eliminating waste.12

In pediatric medicine, the authors investigated a large cohort of infants aged one to 24 months hospitalized with bronchiolitis to 41 tertiary children’s hospitals reporting data to the PHIS database from 2004 to 2012.13 The trend analysis revealed a decrease in the utilization of diagnostics and treatment interventions before the publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics 2006 Bronchiolitis Guidelines.18 There was an additional reduction in the use of CXR, steroids, and bronchodilators after the publication of the guidelines.13

After the CWC was launched in 2012, several surveys have demonstrated a tangible increase in awareness of the CWC and its goals, mostly among primary care physicians and subspecialists. Clinicians who were aware of the campaign found the recommendations to be useful as a legitimate source of guidance and were more likely to reduce the indication of unnecessary care and “low-value” clinical services included in the CWC.1,3,19,20

Few studies in adults have focused on measuring the trends in overuse metrics derived from the CWC recommendations.14-16 The initial studies have found limited reduction on the use of “low-value” care after the inception of the CWC. They suggest that clinician education, awareness, and public promotion alone do not appear to be sufficient to achieve widespread changes in clinical practice. Additional interventions are necessary for the wider implementation and success of the CWC recommendations.11,14,15,19,21,22

However, a more recent study was conducted in 91 academic centers from 2013 through 2016, before and after the publication of a CWC recommendation on the use of troponin-only testing for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. Hospitals with low rates of troponin-only testing before the publication of the recommendation demonstrated a statistically significant increase over time in the rate of adherence. The authors postulated that the impact of the CWC might have been significant because of the increase in the institutional and provider attention to “high-value” care as a result of the campaign.16

In pediatrics, a cross-sectional study defined 20 “low-value” services from a list of more than 400 items from the CWC and other sources of highly regarded, evidence-based pediatrics healthcare recommendations. The list included six diagnostic tests, five imaging tests, and nine prescription drugs ordered in a robust cohort of 4.4 million children nationwide in 2014. The study concluded that approximately one in 10 children received a “low-value” service. The majority (59.4%) were related to prescription drugs, specifically the inappropriate use of antibiotics for a variety of conditions. The estimated combined cost of these unnecessary services was approximately $27 million, with one-third of the cost being paid out of pocket, arguing for significant financial harm. However, this study did not perform a trend analysis.17

Our results are comparable with these studies, reporting an initial increase in awareness and beliefs, followed by progressive changes in clinical practice among pediatric hospital-based clinicians in delivering evidence-based, high-value care after the CWC.

The attribution of the steady reduction in the absolute percentages of overuse/waste in the five metrics related to the CWC observed in this study, including the significant changes noted in two of the overuse indicators after the publication of the CWC-PHM recommendations, should be interpreted with caution. For example, the significant decrease in the use of “low-value” services in bronchiolitis could be attributed to multiple factors such as national guidelines released in 2014 after the campaign,23 national multicenter QI collaborative projects,24,25 and multiple local QI efforts.26,27 The increase in the awareness and impact of the CWC recommendations among pediatric providers could also be a contributing factor, but this association cannot be established in the light of our findings.

On the other hand, despite extensive evidence for the lack of efficacy and the potential harm associated with the use of acid suppressors for uncomplicated GER in infants,28-30 the frequency of this “low-value” therapeutic intervention remains high (~50%). The trend in utilization was not impacted by the CWC-PHM recommendations. This finding could be explained by several factors, including the possibility that several hospitalized patients may suffer from GER disease requiring acid suppressors. Another possibility is that acid suppressors are generally prescribed as an outpatient medication, and physicians treating inpatients may be reluctant to discontinue it during hospitalization. Nevertheless, this recommendation represents a target for review, update, and QI interventions in the near future.

The delivery of inappropriate “low-value” care represents the most significant dimension of waste in healthcare.31 The development of quality measures of “low-value” services representing overuse and waste is the most needed step toward assessing the magnitude of the problem. Overuse metrics could be incorporated into QI interventions to decrease the provision of such services. However, systematic efforts aimed at developing quality indicators of overuse based on the CWC recommendations have been limited. To our knowledge, this is the first study on the trends of metrics derived from the CWC recommendations in pediatric medicine.

Future research is needed to develop overuse metrics further to assess the specific outcomes related to the implementation of the CWC. How much has clinical practice changed as a result of the campaign? What are the outcomes and savings attributable to these efforts? These are critical questions for the immediate future that should be answered to sustain the ongoing efforts and results and to validate that the efforts are worthwhile.

This study has several limitations. First, this is a retrospective and observational study. It cannot prove a direct causal relationship between the publication of the CWC-PHM and the observed trends, as other potential factors may have contributed to the outcomes. Second, in administrative databases, the data quality is dependent on proper documentation and coding that may vary among reporting institutions. These data lack clinical information, and a fair assessment of “appropriateness” could be questioned. In addition, the study included only 36 academic, tertiary children’s hospitals. Because approximately two-thirds of all pediatric hospitalizations in the US occur in community settings,32 this study may not fully represent clinical practice in the majority of pediatric hospitalizations in the US. Finally, the validity of the ITS analysis has inherent limitations due to the variability of the data in some metrics that may affect the power of the analysis. This fact could lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding intervention effectiveness due to the data-driven model applied, as well as the lack of control for other time-varying confounders.33

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

After seven years, the CWC faces important challenges. Critical to the success of the campaign is to “measure wisely” by developing quality indicators of overuse and operationalizing them into administrative and clinical data sources to assess the impact on clinical practice. Our study highlights some limited but steady reduction in the use of some “low-value” services before the campaign. It also demonstrates a modest impact of the campaign on clinical practices in tertiary care children’s hospitals in the US. Clinicians and institutions still have a long way to go in reducing the use of “low-value” interventions in pediatric medicine. These observations challenge us to step up our efforts to implement QI interventions aimed at incorporating these professional, society-endorsed recommendations into our clinical practice.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Kristine De La Torre and Dr. Jennifer McCafferty-Fernandez and the Research Institute of Nicklaus Children’s Hospital for medical writing assistance. They also acknowledge Tatiana Consuegra, library technician, for her clerical assistance in the preparation and submission of this article.

References

1. Choosing Wisely. Choosing Wisely Campaign Official Site. http://www.choosingwisely.org/. Accessed May 2019.
2. Quinonez RA, Garber MD, Schroeder AR, et al. Choosing wisely in pediatric hospital medicine: five opportunities for improved healthcare value. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(9):479-485. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2064.
3. ABIM Foundation CR. Choosing Wisely: A Special Report on the First Five Years. http://www.choosingwisely.org/choosing-wisely-a-special-report-on-the-first-five-years/. Updated 2017. Accessed May 2019.
4. Wolfson D, Santa J, Slass L. Engaging physicians and consumers in conversations about treatment overuse and waste: a short history of the choosing wisely campaign. Acad Med. 2014;89(7):990-995. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000270.
5. Morden NE, Colla CH, Sequist TD, Rosenthal MB. Choosing wisely—the politics and economics of labeling low-value services. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(7):589-592. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1314965.
6. Reyes M, Paulus E, Hronek C, et al. Choosing wisely campaign: Report card and achievable benchmarks of care for children’s hospitals. Hosp Pediatr. 2017;7(11):633-641. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2017-0029.
7. Report Cards. Choosing Wisely Measures - Pediatric Hospital Medicine Detail Reports. Children’s Hospital Association Web site. https://www.childrenshospitals.org/. Accessed May 2019.
8. Mongelluzzo J, Mohamad Z, Ten Have TR, Shah SS. Corticosteroids and mortality in children with bacterial meningitis. JAMA. 2008;299(17):2048-2055. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.17.2048.
9. Buck CJ. 2013 ICD 9 CM for Physicians, Volumes 1 & 2. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2013.
10. Buck CJ. 2018 ICD-10-CM for Physicians. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2018.
11. Kale MS, Bishop TF, Federman AD, Keyhani S. Trends in the overuse of ambulatory health care services in the United States. JAMA Inter Med. 2013;173(2):142-148. https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1022.
12. Colla CH, Morden NE, Sequist TD, Schpero WL, Rosenthal MB. Choosing wisely: Prevalence and correlates of low-value health care services in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(2):221-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3070-z
13. Parikh K, Hall M, Teach SJ. Bronchiolitis management before and after the AAP guidelines. Pediatrics. 2014;133(1): e1-7. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2005.
14. Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the Choosing Wisely campaign. JAMA Inter Med. 2015;175(12):1913-1920. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.
15. Reid RO, Rabideau B, Sood N. Low-value health care services in a commercially insured population. JAMA Inter Med. 2016;176(10):1567-1571. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5031.
16. Prochaska MT, Hohmann SF, Modes M, Arora VM. Trends in troponin-only testing for AMI in academic teaching hospitals and the impact of choosing wisely(R). J Hosp Med. 2017;12(12):957-962. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2846.
17. Chua KP, Schwartz AL, Volerman A, Conti RM, Huang ES. Use of low-value pediatric services among the commercially insured. Pediatrics. 2016;138(6):e20161809. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1809.
18. American Academy of Pediatrics Subcommittee on Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis. Diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1774-1793.
19. Colla CH, Kinsella EA, Morden NE, Meyers DJ, Rosenthal MB, Sequist TD. Physician perceptions of Choosing Wisely and drivers of overuse. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(5):337-343.
20. PerryUndem Research/Communication AF. DataBrief: Findings from a National Survey of Physicians. http://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Summary-Research-Report-Survey-2017.pdf. Updated 2017.
21. Wolfson D. Choosing wisely recommendations using administrative claims data. JAMA Inter Med. 2016;176(4):565. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0357.
22. Heekin AM, Kontor J, Sax HC, Keller M, Wellington A, Weingarten S. Choosing wisely clinical decision support adherence and associated patient outcomes. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24(8):361-366.
23. Ralston SL, Lieberthal AS, Meissner HC, et al. Clinical practice guideline: the diagnosis, management, and prevention of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2014;134(5):e1474-e502. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-2742.
24. Ralston SL, Garber MD, Rice-Conboy E, et al. A multicenter collaborative to reduce unnecessary care in inpatient bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):e20150851. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0851.
25. Mussman GM, Lossius M, Wasif F, et al. Multisite emergency department inpatient collaborative to reduce unnecessary bronchiolitis care. Pediatrics. 2018;141(2):e20170830. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0830.
26. Mittal V, Hall M, Morse R, et al. Impact of inpatient bronchiolitis clinical practice guideline implementation on testing and treatment. J Pediatr. 2014;165(3):570-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.05.021.
27. Tyler A, Krack P, Bakel LA, et al. Interventions to reduce over-utilized tests and treatments in bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6):e20170485. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0485.
28. Rosen R, Vandenplas Y, Singendonk M, et al. Pediatric gastroesophageal reflux clinical practice guidelines: joint recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;66(3):516-554. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181b7f563.
29. Eichenwald EC, COMMITTEE ON FETUS AND NEWBORN. Diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2018;142(1):e20181061. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1061
30. van der Pol RJ, Smits MJ, van Wijk MP, Omari TI, Tabbers MM, Benninga MA. Efficacy of proton-pump inhibitors in children with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2011;127(5):925-935. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2719.
31. IOM Report: Estimated $750B Wasted Annually In Health Care System. Kaiser Health News Web site. https://khn.org/morning-breakout/iom-report/. Updated 2012. Accessed May 2019.
32. Leyenaar JK, Ralston SL, Shieh M, Pekow PS, Mangione‐Smith R, Lindenauer PK. Epidemiology of pediatric hospitalizations at general hospitals and freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(11):743-749. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2624.
33. Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(1):348-355. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098.

References

1. Choosing Wisely. Choosing Wisely Campaign Official Site. http://www.choosingwisely.org/. Accessed May 2019.
2. Quinonez RA, Garber MD, Schroeder AR, et al. Choosing wisely in pediatric hospital medicine: five opportunities for improved healthcare value. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(9):479-485. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2064.
3. ABIM Foundation CR. Choosing Wisely: A Special Report on the First Five Years. http://www.choosingwisely.org/choosing-wisely-a-special-report-on-the-first-five-years/. Updated 2017. Accessed May 2019.
4. Wolfson D, Santa J, Slass L. Engaging physicians and consumers in conversations about treatment overuse and waste: a short history of the choosing wisely campaign. Acad Med. 2014;89(7):990-995. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000270.
5. Morden NE, Colla CH, Sequist TD, Rosenthal MB. Choosing wisely—the politics and economics of labeling low-value services. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(7):589-592. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1314965.
6. Reyes M, Paulus E, Hronek C, et al. Choosing wisely campaign: Report card and achievable benchmarks of care for children’s hospitals. Hosp Pediatr. 2017;7(11):633-641. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2017-0029.
7. Report Cards. Choosing Wisely Measures - Pediatric Hospital Medicine Detail Reports. Children’s Hospital Association Web site. https://www.childrenshospitals.org/. Accessed May 2019.
8. Mongelluzzo J, Mohamad Z, Ten Have TR, Shah SS. Corticosteroids and mortality in children with bacterial meningitis. JAMA. 2008;299(17):2048-2055. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.17.2048.
9. Buck CJ. 2013 ICD 9 CM for Physicians, Volumes 1 & 2. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2013.
10. Buck CJ. 2018 ICD-10-CM for Physicians. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2018.
11. Kale MS, Bishop TF, Federman AD, Keyhani S. Trends in the overuse of ambulatory health care services in the United States. JAMA Inter Med. 2013;173(2):142-148. https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1022.
12. Colla CH, Morden NE, Sequist TD, Schpero WL, Rosenthal MB. Choosing wisely: Prevalence and correlates of low-value health care services in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(2):221-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3070-z
13. Parikh K, Hall M, Teach SJ. Bronchiolitis management before and after the AAP guidelines. Pediatrics. 2014;133(1): e1-7. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2005.
14. Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the Choosing Wisely campaign. JAMA Inter Med. 2015;175(12):1913-1920. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.
15. Reid RO, Rabideau B, Sood N. Low-value health care services in a commercially insured population. JAMA Inter Med. 2016;176(10):1567-1571. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5031.
16. Prochaska MT, Hohmann SF, Modes M, Arora VM. Trends in troponin-only testing for AMI in academic teaching hospitals and the impact of choosing wisely(R). J Hosp Med. 2017;12(12):957-962. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2846.
17. Chua KP, Schwartz AL, Volerman A, Conti RM, Huang ES. Use of low-value pediatric services among the commercially insured. Pediatrics. 2016;138(6):e20161809. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1809.
18. American Academy of Pediatrics Subcommittee on Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis. Diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1774-1793.
19. Colla CH, Kinsella EA, Morden NE, Meyers DJ, Rosenthal MB, Sequist TD. Physician perceptions of Choosing Wisely and drivers of overuse. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(5):337-343.
20. PerryUndem Research/Communication AF. DataBrief: Findings from a National Survey of Physicians. http://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Summary-Research-Report-Survey-2017.pdf. Updated 2017.
21. Wolfson D. Choosing wisely recommendations using administrative claims data. JAMA Inter Med. 2016;176(4):565. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0357.
22. Heekin AM, Kontor J, Sax HC, Keller M, Wellington A, Weingarten S. Choosing wisely clinical decision support adherence and associated patient outcomes. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24(8):361-366.
23. Ralston SL, Lieberthal AS, Meissner HC, et al. Clinical practice guideline: the diagnosis, management, and prevention of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2014;134(5):e1474-e502. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-2742.
24. Ralston SL, Garber MD, Rice-Conboy E, et al. A multicenter collaborative to reduce unnecessary care in inpatient bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2016;137(1):e20150851. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-0851.
25. Mussman GM, Lossius M, Wasif F, et al. Multisite emergency department inpatient collaborative to reduce unnecessary bronchiolitis care. Pediatrics. 2018;141(2):e20170830. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0830.
26. Mittal V, Hall M, Morse R, et al. Impact of inpatient bronchiolitis clinical practice guideline implementation on testing and treatment. J Pediatr. 2014;165(3):570-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.05.021.
27. Tyler A, Krack P, Bakel LA, et al. Interventions to reduce over-utilized tests and treatments in bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2018;141(6):e20170485. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0485.
28. Rosen R, Vandenplas Y, Singendonk M, et al. Pediatric gastroesophageal reflux clinical practice guidelines: joint recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;66(3):516-554. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181b7f563.
29. Eichenwald EC, COMMITTEE ON FETUS AND NEWBORN. Diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2018;142(1):e20181061. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-1061
30. van der Pol RJ, Smits MJ, van Wijk MP, Omari TI, Tabbers MM, Benninga MA. Efficacy of proton-pump inhibitors in children with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2011;127(5):925-935. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2719.
31. IOM Report: Estimated $750B Wasted Annually In Health Care System. Kaiser Health News Web site. https://khn.org/morning-breakout/iom-report/. Updated 2012. Accessed May 2019.
32. Leyenaar JK, Ralston SL, Shieh M, Pekow PS, Mangione‐Smith R, Lindenauer PK. Epidemiology of pediatric hospitalizations at general hospitals and freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(11):743-749. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2624.
33. Bernal JL, Cummins S, Gasparrini A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(1):348-355. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098.

Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 15(2)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 15(2)
Page Number
68-74. Published online first September 18, 2019
Page Number
68-74. Published online first September 18, 2019
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

© 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Mario A. Reyes, MD; E-mail: Mario.Reyes@nicklaushealth.org; Telephone: 305-668-5500.
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Article PDF Media
Media Files

VIP Quality Improvement Network

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 05/22/2017 - 18:08
Display Headline
Decreasing unnecessary utilization in acute bronchiolitis care: Results from the value in inpatient pediatrics network

Currently, 3%5% of infants under a year of age will be admitted to a hospital for acute viral bronchiolitis each year, making it the leading cause of hospitalization in children.15 The American Academy of Pediatrics guideline on the diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis advocates primarily supportive care for this self‐limited disease.6 Specifically, the routine use of therapies such as bronchodilators and corticosteroids are not recommended, nor is routine evaluation with diagnostic testing.6 Numerous studies have established the presence of unwarranted variation in most aspects of bronchiolitis care,713 and the current evidence does not support the routine usage of specific interventions in inpatients.1418

Acute bronchiolitis accounts for direct inpatient medical costs of over $500 million per year.19 Based on estimates from the Healthcare Utilization Project Kids' Inpatient Database, acute bronchiolitis is second only to respiratory distress syndrome as the most expensive disease of hospitalized children.1 Although charges may not correlate directly with costs or even the actual intensity of resource utilization, the national bill, based on charges, is approximately 1.4 billion dollars per year.1 Either way, the leading cause of hospitalization in children is expensive and suffers from dramatic variation in care characterized by overutilization of ineffective interventions.

Evidence‐based guidelines for bronchiolitis are readily available and their successful adoption within larger, academic children's hospitals has been demonstrated.2028 However, upwards of 70% of all children in this country are cared for outside of freestanding children's hospitals,1 and very little has been published about wide dissemination of evidence‐based guidelines in these settings.29 In 2008, the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics (VIP) network was created, as an inclusive pediatric inpatient quality improvement collaborative with a focus on linking academic and community‐based hospitalist groups, to disseminate evidence‐based management strategies for bronchiolitis. We hypothesized that group norming, through benchmarking and public goal setting at the level of the hospitalist group, would decrease overall utilization of nonevidence‐based therapies. Specifically, we were trying to decrease the utilization of bronchodilators, steroids, chest physiotherapy, chest radiography, and viral testing in hospitalized children diagnosed with uncomplicated bronchiolitis.

METHODS

Beginning in early 2008, we recruited pediatric hospitalists into a voluntary bronchiolitis quality improvement collaborative from within the community of hospitalists created by the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine. Participants were recruited through open calls at national conferences and mass e‐mails to the section membership through the listserve. The guiding principle for the collaborative was the idea that institutional adoption of evidence‐based disease‐management strategies would result in higher value of care, and that this process could be facilitated by benchmarking local performance against norms created within the larger community. We used group consensus to identify the therapies and tests to benchmark, although the chosen measures meshed with those addressed in the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guideline. Use of bronchodilators, corticosteroids, chest physiotherapy, chest radiography, and viral testing were all felt to be significantly overutilized in participating clinical sites. We were unaware of any published national targets for utilization of these therapies or tests, and none of the participating hospitalist groups was actively benchmarking their utilization against any peer group at the start of the project. Length of stay, rates of readmission within 72 hours of discharge, and variable direct costs were chosen as balancing measures for the project.

We collected data on hospitalizations for bronchiolitis for 4 calendar years, from 2007 through 2010, based on the following inclusion criteria: children under 24 months of age, hospitalized for the primary diagnosis of acute viral bronchiolitis as defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD‐9) codes 466.11 and 466.19. We specifically included patients who were in observation status as well as those in inpatient status, and excluded all intensive care unit admissions. Other exclusions were specific ICD‐9 codes for: chronic lung diseases, asthma, chromosomal abnormalities, heart disease, and neurological diseases. We then tracked overall utilization of any bronchodilator (albuterol, levalbuterol, epinephrine, or ipratropium) during the hospitalization, including the emergency department; total number of bronchodilator doses per patient; utilization of any corticosteroids (inhaled or systemic); chest radiography; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) testing; and chest physiotherapy; as well as variable direct costs per hospitalization for each center. A standardized toolkit was provided to participating centers to facilitate data collection. Data was sought from administrative sources, collected in aggregate form and not at the patient level, and no protected health information was collected as part of the project. The project was categorized as exempt by the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio Institutional Review Board, the location of the data repository.

The project began in 2008, though we requested that centers provide 2007 data to supplement our baseline. We held the first group meeting in July 2009 and began the facilitated sharing of resources to promote evidence‐based care, such as guidelines, protocols, respiratory scores, and patient handouts, across sites using data from 2007 and 2008 as our baseline for benchmarking and later assessing any improvement. Centers adopted guidelines at their own pace and we did not require guideline adoption for continued participation. We provided summaries of the available literature by topic, in the event that site leaders wished to give institutional grand rounds or other presentations. All dissemination of guidelines or protocols was done based on the request of the center, and no specific resource was created or sanctioned by the group, though the AAP Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis6 remained a guiding document. Some of our centers participated in more extensive collaborative projects which involved small‐group goal setting, adoption of similar protocols, and conference calls, though this never encompassed more than 25% of the network.

The main product of the project was a yearly report benchmarking each hospital against the network average on each of our chosen utilization measures. The first report was disseminated in July 2009 and included data on calendar year 2007 and 2008, which we considered our group baseline. Most institutions began local Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act (PDSA) cycles by mid‐2009 using the data we provided as they benchmarked their performance against other members of the collaborative, and these continued through 2010. Hospitals were coded and remained anonymous. However, we publicly honored the high performers within the network at a yearly meeting, and urged these centers to share their tools and strategies, which was facilitated through a project Web site.30 All participation was voluntary, and all costs were borne by individuals or their respective centers.

In order to assess data quality, we undertook a validation project for calendar year 2009. We requested local direct chart review of a 10% sample, or a minimum of 10 charts, to confirm reported utilization rates for the therapies and tests we tracked. Any center with less than 80% accuracy was then asked to review data collection methods and make adjustments accordingly. One center identified and resolved a significant data discrepancy and 2 centers refused to participate in the validation project, citing their participation in a large national database for which there was already a very rigorous data validation process (Child Health Corporation of America's Pediatric Health Information System database). Given that we did not uncover major discrepancies in data quality within our network, we did not request further data validation but rather promoted year‐to‐year consistency of collection methods, seeking to collect the same type/quality of data that hospitals use in their own internal performance assessments.

Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad InStat, version 3.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Descriptive statistics (including interquartile range ([IQR], the range from 25th to 75th percentile of the data) are provided. Analysis of process measures over the series of years was performed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), as were intra‐hospital comparisons for all measures. Hospitals were not weighted by volume of admissions, ie, the unit of analysis was the hospital and not individual hospitalizations. Data were analyzed for normality using the method of Kolmogorov and Smirnoff, and in cases where normality was not satisfied (steroids and chest physiotherapy), the data were transformed and nonparametric methods were used. Post‐test adjustment for multiple comparisons was done using the TukeyKramer test in cases where ANOVA P values were <0.05. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze contingency tables for categorical variables such as presence or absence of a protocol.

RESULTS

Data encompassing 11,568 bronchiolitis hospitalizations in 17 centers, for calendar years 2007 to 2010, were analyzed for this report. A total of 31 centers ever participated in the project; however, this report is restricted to centers who participated for the entirety of the project from 2008 through 2010, and who consented to have their data reported. Specifically, 18 centers met inclusion criteria and 1 center opted out of the project, leaving the 17 centers described in Table 1. The overall network makeup shifted each year, but was always more than 80% non‐freestanding children's hospitals and approximately 30% urban, as defined as located in a population center of more than 1 million. A large majority of the participants did not have a local bronchiolitis protocol or guideline at the start of the project, although 88% of participants adopted some form of protocolized care by 2010. Calendar years 2007 and 2008 served as our network baseline, with most interventions (in institutions where they occurred) begun by calendar year 2009. The level of intervention varied greatly among institutions, with a few institutions doing nothing more than benchmarking their performance.

Characteristics of Participating Hospitals: VIP Bronchiolitis Project
Participating Centers (Alphabetically by State)Type of FacilityAverage Yearly Bronchiolitis AdmissionsApproximate Medicaid (%)Guideline Prior to Joining Project?Location
  • NOTE: Urban defined as location within a population center of 1 million. Abbreviations: CHWH, children's hospital within a hospital; FSCH, freestanding children's hospital; PEDS, pediatric unit within a larger hospital; VIP, Value in Inpatient Pediatrics network.

Scottsdale Healthcare Scottsdale, AZPEDS13326NoSuburban
Shands Hospital for Children at the University of Florida Gainesville, FLCHWH10759NoSuburban
Children's Hospital of Illinois Peoria, ILCHWH9715NoSuburban
Kentucky Children's Hospital Lexington, KYCHWH13560YesSuburban
Our Lady of the Lake Baton Rouge, LACHWH13870NoSuburban
The Barbara Bush Children's Hospital Portland, MECHWH3141YesSuburban
Franklin Square Hospital Center Baltimore, MDPEDS6640NoSuburban
Anne Arundel Medical Center Annapolis, MDCHWH5636NoSuburban
Children's Hospital at Montefiore Bronx, NYCHWH22065NoUrban
Mission Children's Hospital Asheville, NCCHWH11221YesSuburban
Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital Cleveland, OHCHWH5824YesUrban
Palmetto Health Children's Hospital Columbia, SCCHWH18160NoSuburban
East Tennessee Children's Hospital Knoxville, TNFSCH37360NoSuburban
Texas Children's Hospital Houston, TXFSCH61960YesUrban
Christus Santa Rosa Children's Hospital San Antonio, TXCHWH39071NoUrban
Children's Hospital of The Kings' Daughters Norfolk, VAFSCH30360NoSuburban
Children's Hospital of Richmond Richmond, VACHWH4060NoUrban

Mean length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, and variable direct costs did not differ significantly during the project time period. Mean LOS for the network ranged from a low of 2.4 days (IQR, 2.22.8 days) to a high of 2.7 days (IQR, 2.43.1 days), and mean readmission rates ranged from 1.2% (IQR, 0.7%1.8%) to 1.7% (IQR, 0.7%2.5%) during the project. Mean variable direct costs ranged from $1639 (IQR, $1383$1864) to $1767 (IQR, $1365$2320).

Table 2 describes the mean overall utilization of bronchodilators, chest radiography, RSV testing, steroids, and chest physiotherapy among the group from 2007 to 2010. By 2010, we saw a 46% decline in the volume of bronchodilator used within the network, a 3.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45.8) dose per patient absolute decrease (P < 0.01). We also saw a 12% (95% CI 5%25%) absolute decline in the overall percentage of patients exposed to any bronchodilator (P < 0.01). Finally, there was a 10% (95% CI 3%18%) absolute decline in the overall utilization of any chest physiotherapy (P < 0.01). The project did not demonstrate a significant impact on utilization of corticosteroids, chest radiography, or viral testing, although several centers achieved significant decreases on a local level (data not shown).

Network Mean Utilization of Targeted Therapies
Utilization Measure2007200820092010
No. (IQR)No. (IQR)No. (IQR)No. (IQR)
  • Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; NS, not significant; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.

Bronchodilator doses per patient (P < 0.01)7.9 (4.69.8)6.4 (4.08.4)5.7 (3.67.6)4.3 (3.05.9)
Any bronchodilators (P < 0.01)70% (59%83%)67% (56%77%)68% (61%76%)58% (46%69%)
Chest physiotherapy (P < 0.01)14% (5%19%)10% (1%8%)7% (2%6%)4% (1%7%)
Chest radiography (P = NS)64% (54%81%)66% (55%79%)64% (60%73%)59% (50%73%)
Any steroids (P = NS)21% (14%26%)20% (15%28%)21% (14%22%)16% (13%25%)
RSV testing (P = NS)64% (52%84%)61% (49%78%)62% (50%78%)57% (44%75%)

We analyzed within‐hospital trends as well. Figure 1 describes intra‐hospital change over the course of the project for overall bronchodilator usage. In this analysis, 15 of 17 hospitals (88%) achieved a significant decrease in overall bronchodilator utilization by 2010. (Hospitals 27 and 29 were unable to provide 2007 baseline data.) For doses per patient, 15 of 17 institutions provided data on this measure, and 12 of 15 (80%) achieved significant decreases (Figure 2). Of note, the institutions failing to achieve significant decreases in bronchodilator utilization entered the project with utilization rates that were already significantly below network mean at the start of the project. (Institutions failing to improve are denoted with an asterisk in Figures 1 and 2.) Since most institutions made significant improvements in bronchodilator utilization over time, we looked for correlates of failure to decrease utilization. The strongest association for failure to improve during the project period was use of a protocol prior to joining the network (odds ratio [OR] = 11, 95% CI 261).

Figure 1
Intra‐hospital change in bronchodilator utilization. Asterisks indicate institutions failing to improve.
Figure 2
Intra‐hospital trends in volume of bronchodilator utilization. Asterisks indicate institutions failing to improve.

DISCUSSION

We demonstrated a significant decline in utilization of bronchodilators and chest physiotherapy in inpatient bronchiolitis within a voluntary quality collaborative focused on benchmarking without employing intensive interventions. This observation is important in that it demonstrates real‐world efficacy for our methods. Prior literature has clearly demonstrated that local bronchiolitis guidelines are effective; however, our data on over 11,000 hospitalizations from a broad array of inpatient settings continue to show a high rate of overutilization. We facilitated dissemination and sharing of guideline‐related tools primarily electronically, and capitalized on perceived peer‐group frustration with inefficient management of a high‐volume, high‐utilization disease. While the project leadership had varying degrees of advanced training in quality improvement methodology, the majority of the site leaders were self‐taught and trained while on the job. Our inclusive collaborative had some success using pragmatic and low‐resource methods which we believe is a novel approach to the issue of overutilization.

These considerations are highlighted given the pressing need to find more efficient and scalable means of bending the cost curve of healthcare in the United States. Learning collaboratives are a relatively new model for improvement, with some history in pediatrics,31, 32 and are attractive because of their potential to generate both widespread capacity for change as well as direct improvement. Both cystic fibrosis31 and neonatology collaboratives32 have been celebrated for their positive impacts on children's healthcare, and both are testaments to the power inherent in creating a community of like‐minded individuals. One of the most popular models for learning collaboratives remains the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series; however, this model is resource intensive in that it typically involves large teams and several yearly face‐to‐face meetings, with significant monetary investment on the part of hospitals. On the other hand, virtual collaboratives have produced mixed results with respect to quality improvement,33 so there is a continued need to maximize our learning about what works efficiently. Our collaborative was able to successfully disseminate tools developed in large academic institutions to be applied in smaller and more varied settings, where resources for quality improvement activities were limited.

One possible reason for any successes in this project was the existence of a well‐known guideline for the management of bronchiolitis published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2006. This guideline recommends primarily symptomatic care, and has a statement supporting the contention that routine use of our targeted therapies is unnecessary. It allows for a trial of bronchodilator, but specifically states that all trials should be accompanied by the use of an objective measure of improvement (typically interpreted to mean a respiratory distress score). A guideline sanctioned by an important national organization of pediatricians was invaluable, and we believe that it should serve as a basis for any nationally promoted inpatient quality measure for this very common pediatric illness. The existence of the AAP guideline also highlights the possibility that our results are merely representative of secular trends in utilization in bronchiolitis care, since we had no control group. The available literature on national guidelines has shown mixed and quite modest impacts in other countries.28, 34 Most of our group took active steps to operationalize the guidelines as part of their participation in this collaborative, though they might have done similar work anyway due to the increasing importance of quality improvement in hospitalist culture over the years of the project.

The project did not demonstrate any impact on steroid utilization, or on rates of obtaining chest radiography or viral testing, despite expressly targeting these widely overused interventions. These modalities are often employed in the emergency department and, as a collaborative of pediatric hospitalists, we did not have specific emergency department participation which we recognize as a major weakness and potential impediment to further progress. We hope to collaborate with our respective emergency departments in the future on these particular measures. We also noted that many institutions were inflexible about foregoing viral testing, due to infection control issues arising from the need to cohort patients in shared rooms based on RSV positivity during the busy winter months. A few institutions were able to alter their infection control policies using the strategy of assuming all children with bronchiolitis had RSV (ie, choosing to use both contact precautions and to wear a mask when entering rooms), though this was not universally popular. Finally, we recognize a missed opportunity in not collecting dose per patient level data for steroids, which might have allowed us to distinguish hospitals with ongoing inpatient utilization of steroids from those with only emergency department usage.

Another significant limitation of this project was the lack of annual assessments of data quality. However, we believe our findings are still useful and important, even with this obvious limitation. Most quality improvement work is done using hospital‐supplied data gleaned from administrative databases, exactly the sources used in this project. Key decisions are made in most hospitals in the country based on data of similar quality. Further limitations of the project relate to the issue of replicability. The disease process we addressed is a major source of frustration to pediatric hospitalists, and our sample likely consisted of the most highly motivated individuals, as they sought out and joined a group with the express purpose of decreasing unnecessary utilization in bronchiolitis. We believe this limitation highlights the likely need for quality measures to emerge organically out of a community of practice when resources are limited, ie, we do not believe we would have had significant success using our methods with an unpopular or externally imposed quality measure.

Although a detailed analysis of costs was beyond the scope of the current project, it is possible that decreased utilization resulted in overall cost savings, despite the fact that our data did not demonstrate a significant change in network‐level average variable direct costs related to bronchiolitis. It has been suggested that such savings may be particularly difficult to demonstrate objectively, especially when the principal costs targeted are labor‐based.35 LOS did not significantly vary during the project, whereas the use of labor‐intensive therapies like nebulized bronchodilators and chest physiotherapy declined. It is, however, quite possible that the decreased utilization we demonstrated was accompanied by a concomitant increase in utilization of other unmeasured therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

A volunteer, peer‐group collaborative focused on benchmarking decreased utilization of bronchodilators and chest physiotherapy in bronchiolitis, though had no impact on overuse of other unnecessary therapies and tests.

Acknowledgements

The following authors have participated in the production of this work by: Conception and design of project: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate; Acquisition of data: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, Ryan; Analysis and interpretation of data: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, Ryan; Drafting the article: Ralston, Garber, Shen; Revising it critically for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, Ryan.

Disclosures: The VIP network receives financial/administrative support from the American Academy of Pediatrics through the Quality Improvement Innovations Network. Dr Ralston receives financial support from the American Academy of Pediatrics as editor of the AAP publication, Hospital Pediatrics. Drs Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, and Ryan report no conflicts.

Files
References
  1. HCUPnet. Kids Inpatient Database 2006. Available at: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/. Accessed February 6, 2011.
  2. Leader S, Kohlhase K. Recent trends in severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) among US infants, 1997 to 2000. J Pediatr. 2003;143:S127S132.
  3. Yorita KL, Holman RC, Sejvar JJ, Steiner CA, Schonberger LB. Infectious disease hospitalizations among infants in the United States. Pediatrics. 2008;121:244252.
  4. Smyth RL, Openshaw PJ. Bronchiolitis. Lancet. 2006;368:312322.
  5. Boyce TG, Mellen BG, Mitchel EF, Wright PF, Griffin MR. Rates of hospitalization for respiratory syncytial virus infection among children in Medicaid. J Pediatr. 2000;137:865870.
  6. Subcommittee on the Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis, 2004–2006. Clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118:17741793.
  7. Mansbach JM, Emond JA, Camargo CA. Bronchiolitis in US emergency departments 1992 to 2000: epidemiology and practice variation. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005;21:242247.
  8. Plint AC, Johnson DW, Wiebe N, et al. Practice variation among pediatric emergency departments in the treatment of bronchiolitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:353360.
  9. Mallory MD, Shay DK, Garrett J, Bordley WC. Bronchiolitis management preferences and the influence of pulse oximetry and respiratory rate on the decision to admit. Pediatrics. 2003;111:e45e51.
  10. Conway PH, Edwards S, Stucky ER, Chiang VW, Ottolini MC, Landrigan CP. Variations in management of common inpatient pediatric illnesses: hospitalists and community pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2006;118:441447.
  11. Landrigan CP, Conway PH, Stucky ER, Chiang VW, Ottolini MC. Variation in pediatric hospitalists' use of proven and unproven therapies: a study from the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings (PRIS) network. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:292298.
  12. Wang EE, Law BJ, Boucher FD, et al. Pediatric Investigators Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada (PICNIC) study of admission and management variation in patients hospitalized with respiratory syncytial viral lower respiratory tract infection. J Pediatr. 1996;129:390395.
  13. Willson DF, Horn SD, Hendley JO, Smout R, Gassaway J. Effect of practice variation on resource utilization in infants hospitalized for viral lower respiratory illness. Pediatrics. 2001;108:851855.
  14. Gadomski AM, Brower M. Bronchodilators for bronchiolitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 8;(12):CD001266.
  15. Perotta C, Ortiz Z, Roque M. Chest physiotherapy for acute bronchiolitis in pediatric patients between 0 and 24 months old. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD004873.
  16. Hartling L, Bialy LM, Vandermeer B, et al. Epinephrine for bronchiolitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15;(6):CD003123.
  17. Fernandes RM, Bialy LM, Vandermeer B, et al. Glucocorticoids for acute bronchiolitis in infants and young children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 6;(10):CD004878.
  18. Davison C, Ventre KM, Lucetti M, Randolph AG. Efficacy of interventions for bronchiolitis in critically ill infants: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2004;5:482489.
  19. Pelletier AJ, Mansbach JM, Camargo CA. Direct medical costs of bronchiolitis hospitalizations in the United States. Pediatrics. 2006;118(6):24182423.
  20. Perlstein PH, Kotagal UR, Bolling C, et al. Evaluation of an evidence‐based guideline for bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 1999;104(6):13341341.
  21. Adcock PM, Sanders CL, Marshall GS. Standardizing the care of bronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152(8):739744.
  22. Muething S, Schoettker PJ, Gerhardt WE, Atherton HD, Britto MT, Kotagal UR. Decreasing overuse of therapies in the treatment of bronchiolitis by incorporating evidence at the point of care. J Pediatr. 2004;144:703710.
  23. King WJ, Le Saux N, Sampson M, Gaboury I, Norris M, Moher D. Effect of point of care information on inpatient management of bronchiolitis. BMC Pediatr. 2007;7:4.
  24. Cheney J, Barber S, Altamirano L, et al. A clinical pathway for bronchiolitis is effective in reducing readmission rates. J Pediatr. 2005;147:622626.
  25. Perlstein PH, Kotagal UR, Schoettker PJ, et al. Sustaining the implementation of an evidence‐based guideline for bronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:10011007.
  26. David M, Luc‐Vanuxem C, Loundou A, Bosdure E, Auquier P, Dubus JC. Assessment of the French Consensus Conference for Acute Viral Bronchiolitis on outpatient management: progress between 2003 and 2008 [in French]. Arch Pediatr. 2010;17:125131.
  27. Kotagal UR, Robbins JM, Kini NM, Schoettker PJ, Atherton HD, Kirschbaum MS. Impact of a bronchiolitis guideline: a multisite demonstration project. Chest. 2002;121:17891797.
  28. Barben J, Kuehni CE, Trachsel D, Hammer J. Management of acute bronchiolitis: can evidence based guidelines alter clinical practice? Thorax. 2008;63:11031109.
  29. Dougherty D, Conway PH. The “3 T's” roadmap to transform US health care: the “how” of high quality care. JAMA. 2008;299(19):23192321.
  30. The VIP Network. Available at: http://www.vipnetwork.webs.com. Accessed October 5, 2010.
  31. Quon BS, Goss CH. A story of success: continuous quality improvement in cystic fibrosis in the USA. Thorax. 2011;66:11061168.
  32. Payne NR, Finkelstein MJ, Liu M, Kaempf JW, Sharek PJ, Olsen S. NICU practices and outcomes associated with 9 years of quality improvement collaboratives. Pediatrics. 2010;125:437446.
  33. Speroff T, Ely EW, Greevey R, et al. Quality improvement projects target health care‐associated infections: comparing virtual collaborative and toolkit approaches. J Hosp Med. 2011;6:271278.
  34. Touzet S, Réfabert L, Letrilliart L, Ortolan B, Colin C. Impact of consensus development conference guidelines on primary care of bronchiolitis: are national guidelines being followed? J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:651656.
  35. Rauh SS, Wadsworth EB, Weeks WB, Weinstein JN. The savings illusion—why clinical quality improvement fails to deliver bottom‐line results. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:e48.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 8(1)
Publications
Page Number
25-30
Sections
Files
Files
Article PDF
Article PDF

Currently, 3%5% of infants under a year of age will be admitted to a hospital for acute viral bronchiolitis each year, making it the leading cause of hospitalization in children.15 The American Academy of Pediatrics guideline on the diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis advocates primarily supportive care for this self‐limited disease.6 Specifically, the routine use of therapies such as bronchodilators and corticosteroids are not recommended, nor is routine evaluation with diagnostic testing.6 Numerous studies have established the presence of unwarranted variation in most aspects of bronchiolitis care,713 and the current evidence does not support the routine usage of specific interventions in inpatients.1418

Acute bronchiolitis accounts for direct inpatient medical costs of over $500 million per year.19 Based on estimates from the Healthcare Utilization Project Kids' Inpatient Database, acute bronchiolitis is second only to respiratory distress syndrome as the most expensive disease of hospitalized children.1 Although charges may not correlate directly with costs or even the actual intensity of resource utilization, the national bill, based on charges, is approximately 1.4 billion dollars per year.1 Either way, the leading cause of hospitalization in children is expensive and suffers from dramatic variation in care characterized by overutilization of ineffective interventions.

Evidence‐based guidelines for bronchiolitis are readily available and their successful adoption within larger, academic children's hospitals has been demonstrated.2028 However, upwards of 70% of all children in this country are cared for outside of freestanding children's hospitals,1 and very little has been published about wide dissemination of evidence‐based guidelines in these settings.29 In 2008, the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics (VIP) network was created, as an inclusive pediatric inpatient quality improvement collaborative with a focus on linking academic and community‐based hospitalist groups, to disseminate evidence‐based management strategies for bronchiolitis. We hypothesized that group norming, through benchmarking and public goal setting at the level of the hospitalist group, would decrease overall utilization of nonevidence‐based therapies. Specifically, we were trying to decrease the utilization of bronchodilators, steroids, chest physiotherapy, chest radiography, and viral testing in hospitalized children diagnosed with uncomplicated bronchiolitis.

METHODS

Beginning in early 2008, we recruited pediatric hospitalists into a voluntary bronchiolitis quality improvement collaborative from within the community of hospitalists created by the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine. Participants were recruited through open calls at national conferences and mass e‐mails to the section membership through the listserve. The guiding principle for the collaborative was the idea that institutional adoption of evidence‐based disease‐management strategies would result in higher value of care, and that this process could be facilitated by benchmarking local performance against norms created within the larger community. We used group consensus to identify the therapies and tests to benchmark, although the chosen measures meshed with those addressed in the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guideline. Use of bronchodilators, corticosteroids, chest physiotherapy, chest radiography, and viral testing were all felt to be significantly overutilized in participating clinical sites. We were unaware of any published national targets for utilization of these therapies or tests, and none of the participating hospitalist groups was actively benchmarking their utilization against any peer group at the start of the project. Length of stay, rates of readmission within 72 hours of discharge, and variable direct costs were chosen as balancing measures for the project.

We collected data on hospitalizations for bronchiolitis for 4 calendar years, from 2007 through 2010, based on the following inclusion criteria: children under 24 months of age, hospitalized for the primary diagnosis of acute viral bronchiolitis as defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD‐9) codes 466.11 and 466.19. We specifically included patients who were in observation status as well as those in inpatient status, and excluded all intensive care unit admissions. Other exclusions were specific ICD‐9 codes for: chronic lung diseases, asthma, chromosomal abnormalities, heart disease, and neurological diseases. We then tracked overall utilization of any bronchodilator (albuterol, levalbuterol, epinephrine, or ipratropium) during the hospitalization, including the emergency department; total number of bronchodilator doses per patient; utilization of any corticosteroids (inhaled or systemic); chest radiography; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) testing; and chest physiotherapy; as well as variable direct costs per hospitalization for each center. A standardized toolkit was provided to participating centers to facilitate data collection. Data was sought from administrative sources, collected in aggregate form and not at the patient level, and no protected health information was collected as part of the project. The project was categorized as exempt by the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio Institutional Review Board, the location of the data repository.

The project began in 2008, though we requested that centers provide 2007 data to supplement our baseline. We held the first group meeting in July 2009 and began the facilitated sharing of resources to promote evidence‐based care, such as guidelines, protocols, respiratory scores, and patient handouts, across sites using data from 2007 and 2008 as our baseline for benchmarking and later assessing any improvement. Centers adopted guidelines at their own pace and we did not require guideline adoption for continued participation. We provided summaries of the available literature by topic, in the event that site leaders wished to give institutional grand rounds or other presentations. All dissemination of guidelines or protocols was done based on the request of the center, and no specific resource was created or sanctioned by the group, though the AAP Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis6 remained a guiding document. Some of our centers participated in more extensive collaborative projects which involved small‐group goal setting, adoption of similar protocols, and conference calls, though this never encompassed more than 25% of the network.

The main product of the project was a yearly report benchmarking each hospital against the network average on each of our chosen utilization measures. The first report was disseminated in July 2009 and included data on calendar year 2007 and 2008, which we considered our group baseline. Most institutions began local Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act (PDSA) cycles by mid‐2009 using the data we provided as they benchmarked their performance against other members of the collaborative, and these continued through 2010. Hospitals were coded and remained anonymous. However, we publicly honored the high performers within the network at a yearly meeting, and urged these centers to share their tools and strategies, which was facilitated through a project Web site.30 All participation was voluntary, and all costs were borne by individuals or their respective centers.

In order to assess data quality, we undertook a validation project for calendar year 2009. We requested local direct chart review of a 10% sample, or a minimum of 10 charts, to confirm reported utilization rates for the therapies and tests we tracked. Any center with less than 80% accuracy was then asked to review data collection methods and make adjustments accordingly. One center identified and resolved a significant data discrepancy and 2 centers refused to participate in the validation project, citing their participation in a large national database for which there was already a very rigorous data validation process (Child Health Corporation of America's Pediatric Health Information System database). Given that we did not uncover major discrepancies in data quality within our network, we did not request further data validation but rather promoted year‐to‐year consistency of collection methods, seeking to collect the same type/quality of data that hospitals use in their own internal performance assessments.

Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad InStat, version 3.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Descriptive statistics (including interquartile range ([IQR], the range from 25th to 75th percentile of the data) are provided. Analysis of process measures over the series of years was performed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), as were intra‐hospital comparisons for all measures. Hospitals were not weighted by volume of admissions, ie, the unit of analysis was the hospital and not individual hospitalizations. Data were analyzed for normality using the method of Kolmogorov and Smirnoff, and in cases where normality was not satisfied (steroids and chest physiotherapy), the data were transformed and nonparametric methods were used. Post‐test adjustment for multiple comparisons was done using the TukeyKramer test in cases where ANOVA P values were <0.05. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze contingency tables for categorical variables such as presence or absence of a protocol.

RESULTS

Data encompassing 11,568 bronchiolitis hospitalizations in 17 centers, for calendar years 2007 to 2010, were analyzed for this report. A total of 31 centers ever participated in the project; however, this report is restricted to centers who participated for the entirety of the project from 2008 through 2010, and who consented to have their data reported. Specifically, 18 centers met inclusion criteria and 1 center opted out of the project, leaving the 17 centers described in Table 1. The overall network makeup shifted each year, but was always more than 80% non‐freestanding children's hospitals and approximately 30% urban, as defined as located in a population center of more than 1 million. A large majority of the participants did not have a local bronchiolitis protocol or guideline at the start of the project, although 88% of participants adopted some form of protocolized care by 2010. Calendar years 2007 and 2008 served as our network baseline, with most interventions (in institutions where they occurred) begun by calendar year 2009. The level of intervention varied greatly among institutions, with a few institutions doing nothing more than benchmarking their performance.

Characteristics of Participating Hospitals: VIP Bronchiolitis Project
Participating Centers (Alphabetically by State)Type of FacilityAverage Yearly Bronchiolitis AdmissionsApproximate Medicaid (%)Guideline Prior to Joining Project?Location
  • NOTE: Urban defined as location within a population center of 1 million. Abbreviations: CHWH, children's hospital within a hospital; FSCH, freestanding children's hospital; PEDS, pediatric unit within a larger hospital; VIP, Value in Inpatient Pediatrics network.

Scottsdale Healthcare Scottsdale, AZPEDS13326NoSuburban
Shands Hospital for Children at the University of Florida Gainesville, FLCHWH10759NoSuburban
Children's Hospital of Illinois Peoria, ILCHWH9715NoSuburban
Kentucky Children's Hospital Lexington, KYCHWH13560YesSuburban
Our Lady of the Lake Baton Rouge, LACHWH13870NoSuburban
The Barbara Bush Children's Hospital Portland, MECHWH3141YesSuburban
Franklin Square Hospital Center Baltimore, MDPEDS6640NoSuburban
Anne Arundel Medical Center Annapolis, MDCHWH5636NoSuburban
Children's Hospital at Montefiore Bronx, NYCHWH22065NoUrban
Mission Children's Hospital Asheville, NCCHWH11221YesSuburban
Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital Cleveland, OHCHWH5824YesUrban
Palmetto Health Children's Hospital Columbia, SCCHWH18160NoSuburban
East Tennessee Children's Hospital Knoxville, TNFSCH37360NoSuburban
Texas Children's Hospital Houston, TXFSCH61960YesUrban
Christus Santa Rosa Children's Hospital San Antonio, TXCHWH39071NoUrban
Children's Hospital of The Kings' Daughters Norfolk, VAFSCH30360NoSuburban
Children's Hospital of Richmond Richmond, VACHWH4060NoUrban

Mean length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, and variable direct costs did not differ significantly during the project time period. Mean LOS for the network ranged from a low of 2.4 days (IQR, 2.22.8 days) to a high of 2.7 days (IQR, 2.43.1 days), and mean readmission rates ranged from 1.2% (IQR, 0.7%1.8%) to 1.7% (IQR, 0.7%2.5%) during the project. Mean variable direct costs ranged from $1639 (IQR, $1383$1864) to $1767 (IQR, $1365$2320).

Table 2 describes the mean overall utilization of bronchodilators, chest radiography, RSV testing, steroids, and chest physiotherapy among the group from 2007 to 2010. By 2010, we saw a 46% decline in the volume of bronchodilator used within the network, a 3.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45.8) dose per patient absolute decrease (P < 0.01). We also saw a 12% (95% CI 5%25%) absolute decline in the overall percentage of patients exposed to any bronchodilator (P < 0.01). Finally, there was a 10% (95% CI 3%18%) absolute decline in the overall utilization of any chest physiotherapy (P < 0.01). The project did not demonstrate a significant impact on utilization of corticosteroids, chest radiography, or viral testing, although several centers achieved significant decreases on a local level (data not shown).

Network Mean Utilization of Targeted Therapies
Utilization Measure2007200820092010
No. (IQR)No. (IQR)No. (IQR)No. (IQR)
  • Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; NS, not significant; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.

Bronchodilator doses per patient (P < 0.01)7.9 (4.69.8)6.4 (4.08.4)5.7 (3.67.6)4.3 (3.05.9)
Any bronchodilators (P < 0.01)70% (59%83%)67% (56%77%)68% (61%76%)58% (46%69%)
Chest physiotherapy (P < 0.01)14% (5%19%)10% (1%8%)7% (2%6%)4% (1%7%)
Chest radiography (P = NS)64% (54%81%)66% (55%79%)64% (60%73%)59% (50%73%)
Any steroids (P = NS)21% (14%26%)20% (15%28%)21% (14%22%)16% (13%25%)
RSV testing (P = NS)64% (52%84%)61% (49%78%)62% (50%78%)57% (44%75%)

We analyzed within‐hospital trends as well. Figure 1 describes intra‐hospital change over the course of the project for overall bronchodilator usage. In this analysis, 15 of 17 hospitals (88%) achieved a significant decrease in overall bronchodilator utilization by 2010. (Hospitals 27 and 29 were unable to provide 2007 baseline data.) For doses per patient, 15 of 17 institutions provided data on this measure, and 12 of 15 (80%) achieved significant decreases (Figure 2). Of note, the institutions failing to achieve significant decreases in bronchodilator utilization entered the project with utilization rates that were already significantly below network mean at the start of the project. (Institutions failing to improve are denoted with an asterisk in Figures 1 and 2.) Since most institutions made significant improvements in bronchodilator utilization over time, we looked for correlates of failure to decrease utilization. The strongest association for failure to improve during the project period was use of a protocol prior to joining the network (odds ratio [OR] = 11, 95% CI 261).

Figure 1
Intra‐hospital change in bronchodilator utilization. Asterisks indicate institutions failing to improve.
Figure 2
Intra‐hospital trends in volume of bronchodilator utilization. Asterisks indicate institutions failing to improve.

DISCUSSION

We demonstrated a significant decline in utilization of bronchodilators and chest physiotherapy in inpatient bronchiolitis within a voluntary quality collaborative focused on benchmarking without employing intensive interventions. This observation is important in that it demonstrates real‐world efficacy for our methods. Prior literature has clearly demonstrated that local bronchiolitis guidelines are effective; however, our data on over 11,000 hospitalizations from a broad array of inpatient settings continue to show a high rate of overutilization. We facilitated dissemination and sharing of guideline‐related tools primarily electronically, and capitalized on perceived peer‐group frustration with inefficient management of a high‐volume, high‐utilization disease. While the project leadership had varying degrees of advanced training in quality improvement methodology, the majority of the site leaders were self‐taught and trained while on the job. Our inclusive collaborative had some success using pragmatic and low‐resource methods which we believe is a novel approach to the issue of overutilization.

These considerations are highlighted given the pressing need to find more efficient and scalable means of bending the cost curve of healthcare in the United States. Learning collaboratives are a relatively new model for improvement, with some history in pediatrics,31, 32 and are attractive because of their potential to generate both widespread capacity for change as well as direct improvement. Both cystic fibrosis31 and neonatology collaboratives32 have been celebrated for their positive impacts on children's healthcare, and both are testaments to the power inherent in creating a community of like‐minded individuals. One of the most popular models for learning collaboratives remains the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series; however, this model is resource intensive in that it typically involves large teams and several yearly face‐to‐face meetings, with significant monetary investment on the part of hospitals. On the other hand, virtual collaboratives have produced mixed results with respect to quality improvement,33 so there is a continued need to maximize our learning about what works efficiently. Our collaborative was able to successfully disseminate tools developed in large academic institutions to be applied in smaller and more varied settings, where resources for quality improvement activities were limited.

One possible reason for any successes in this project was the existence of a well‐known guideline for the management of bronchiolitis published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2006. This guideline recommends primarily symptomatic care, and has a statement supporting the contention that routine use of our targeted therapies is unnecessary. It allows for a trial of bronchodilator, but specifically states that all trials should be accompanied by the use of an objective measure of improvement (typically interpreted to mean a respiratory distress score). A guideline sanctioned by an important national organization of pediatricians was invaluable, and we believe that it should serve as a basis for any nationally promoted inpatient quality measure for this very common pediatric illness. The existence of the AAP guideline also highlights the possibility that our results are merely representative of secular trends in utilization in bronchiolitis care, since we had no control group. The available literature on national guidelines has shown mixed and quite modest impacts in other countries.28, 34 Most of our group took active steps to operationalize the guidelines as part of their participation in this collaborative, though they might have done similar work anyway due to the increasing importance of quality improvement in hospitalist culture over the years of the project.

The project did not demonstrate any impact on steroid utilization, or on rates of obtaining chest radiography or viral testing, despite expressly targeting these widely overused interventions. These modalities are often employed in the emergency department and, as a collaborative of pediatric hospitalists, we did not have specific emergency department participation which we recognize as a major weakness and potential impediment to further progress. We hope to collaborate with our respective emergency departments in the future on these particular measures. We also noted that many institutions were inflexible about foregoing viral testing, due to infection control issues arising from the need to cohort patients in shared rooms based on RSV positivity during the busy winter months. A few institutions were able to alter their infection control policies using the strategy of assuming all children with bronchiolitis had RSV (ie, choosing to use both contact precautions and to wear a mask when entering rooms), though this was not universally popular. Finally, we recognize a missed opportunity in not collecting dose per patient level data for steroids, which might have allowed us to distinguish hospitals with ongoing inpatient utilization of steroids from those with only emergency department usage.

Another significant limitation of this project was the lack of annual assessments of data quality. However, we believe our findings are still useful and important, even with this obvious limitation. Most quality improvement work is done using hospital‐supplied data gleaned from administrative databases, exactly the sources used in this project. Key decisions are made in most hospitals in the country based on data of similar quality. Further limitations of the project relate to the issue of replicability. The disease process we addressed is a major source of frustration to pediatric hospitalists, and our sample likely consisted of the most highly motivated individuals, as they sought out and joined a group with the express purpose of decreasing unnecessary utilization in bronchiolitis. We believe this limitation highlights the likely need for quality measures to emerge organically out of a community of practice when resources are limited, ie, we do not believe we would have had significant success using our methods with an unpopular or externally imposed quality measure.

Although a detailed analysis of costs was beyond the scope of the current project, it is possible that decreased utilization resulted in overall cost savings, despite the fact that our data did not demonstrate a significant change in network‐level average variable direct costs related to bronchiolitis. It has been suggested that such savings may be particularly difficult to demonstrate objectively, especially when the principal costs targeted are labor‐based.35 LOS did not significantly vary during the project, whereas the use of labor‐intensive therapies like nebulized bronchodilators and chest physiotherapy declined. It is, however, quite possible that the decreased utilization we demonstrated was accompanied by a concomitant increase in utilization of other unmeasured therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

A volunteer, peer‐group collaborative focused on benchmarking decreased utilization of bronchodilators and chest physiotherapy in bronchiolitis, though had no impact on overuse of other unnecessary therapies and tests.

Acknowledgements

The following authors have participated in the production of this work by: Conception and design of project: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate; Acquisition of data: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, Ryan; Analysis and interpretation of data: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, Ryan; Drafting the article: Ralston, Garber, Shen; Revising it critically for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, Ryan.

Disclosures: The VIP network receives financial/administrative support from the American Academy of Pediatrics through the Quality Improvement Innovations Network. Dr Ralston receives financial support from the American Academy of Pediatrics as editor of the AAP publication, Hospital Pediatrics. Drs Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, and Ryan report no conflicts.

Currently, 3%5% of infants under a year of age will be admitted to a hospital for acute viral bronchiolitis each year, making it the leading cause of hospitalization in children.15 The American Academy of Pediatrics guideline on the diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis advocates primarily supportive care for this self‐limited disease.6 Specifically, the routine use of therapies such as bronchodilators and corticosteroids are not recommended, nor is routine evaluation with diagnostic testing.6 Numerous studies have established the presence of unwarranted variation in most aspects of bronchiolitis care,713 and the current evidence does not support the routine usage of specific interventions in inpatients.1418

Acute bronchiolitis accounts for direct inpatient medical costs of over $500 million per year.19 Based on estimates from the Healthcare Utilization Project Kids' Inpatient Database, acute bronchiolitis is second only to respiratory distress syndrome as the most expensive disease of hospitalized children.1 Although charges may not correlate directly with costs or even the actual intensity of resource utilization, the national bill, based on charges, is approximately 1.4 billion dollars per year.1 Either way, the leading cause of hospitalization in children is expensive and suffers from dramatic variation in care characterized by overutilization of ineffective interventions.

Evidence‐based guidelines for bronchiolitis are readily available and their successful adoption within larger, academic children's hospitals has been demonstrated.2028 However, upwards of 70% of all children in this country are cared for outside of freestanding children's hospitals,1 and very little has been published about wide dissemination of evidence‐based guidelines in these settings.29 In 2008, the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics (VIP) network was created, as an inclusive pediatric inpatient quality improvement collaborative with a focus on linking academic and community‐based hospitalist groups, to disseminate evidence‐based management strategies for bronchiolitis. We hypothesized that group norming, through benchmarking and public goal setting at the level of the hospitalist group, would decrease overall utilization of nonevidence‐based therapies. Specifically, we were trying to decrease the utilization of bronchodilators, steroids, chest physiotherapy, chest radiography, and viral testing in hospitalized children diagnosed with uncomplicated bronchiolitis.

METHODS

Beginning in early 2008, we recruited pediatric hospitalists into a voluntary bronchiolitis quality improvement collaborative from within the community of hospitalists created by the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine. Participants were recruited through open calls at national conferences and mass e‐mails to the section membership through the listserve. The guiding principle for the collaborative was the idea that institutional adoption of evidence‐based disease‐management strategies would result in higher value of care, and that this process could be facilitated by benchmarking local performance against norms created within the larger community. We used group consensus to identify the therapies and tests to benchmark, although the chosen measures meshed with those addressed in the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guideline. Use of bronchodilators, corticosteroids, chest physiotherapy, chest radiography, and viral testing were all felt to be significantly overutilized in participating clinical sites. We were unaware of any published national targets for utilization of these therapies or tests, and none of the participating hospitalist groups was actively benchmarking their utilization against any peer group at the start of the project. Length of stay, rates of readmission within 72 hours of discharge, and variable direct costs were chosen as balancing measures for the project.

We collected data on hospitalizations for bronchiolitis for 4 calendar years, from 2007 through 2010, based on the following inclusion criteria: children under 24 months of age, hospitalized for the primary diagnosis of acute viral bronchiolitis as defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD‐9) codes 466.11 and 466.19. We specifically included patients who were in observation status as well as those in inpatient status, and excluded all intensive care unit admissions. Other exclusions were specific ICD‐9 codes for: chronic lung diseases, asthma, chromosomal abnormalities, heart disease, and neurological diseases. We then tracked overall utilization of any bronchodilator (albuterol, levalbuterol, epinephrine, or ipratropium) during the hospitalization, including the emergency department; total number of bronchodilator doses per patient; utilization of any corticosteroids (inhaled or systemic); chest radiography; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) testing; and chest physiotherapy; as well as variable direct costs per hospitalization for each center. A standardized toolkit was provided to participating centers to facilitate data collection. Data was sought from administrative sources, collected in aggregate form and not at the patient level, and no protected health information was collected as part of the project. The project was categorized as exempt by the University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio Institutional Review Board, the location of the data repository.

The project began in 2008, though we requested that centers provide 2007 data to supplement our baseline. We held the first group meeting in July 2009 and began the facilitated sharing of resources to promote evidence‐based care, such as guidelines, protocols, respiratory scores, and patient handouts, across sites using data from 2007 and 2008 as our baseline for benchmarking and later assessing any improvement. Centers adopted guidelines at their own pace and we did not require guideline adoption for continued participation. We provided summaries of the available literature by topic, in the event that site leaders wished to give institutional grand rounds or other presentations. All dissemination of guidelines or protocols was done based on the request of the center, and no specific resource was created or sanctioned by the group, though the AAP Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis6 remained a guiding document. Some of our centers participated in more extensive collaborative projects which involved small‐group goal setting, adoption of similar protocols, and conference calls, though this never encompassed more than 25% of the network.

The main product of the project was a yearly report benchmarking each hospital against the network average on each of our chosen utilization measures. The first report was disseminated in July 2009 and included data on calendar year 2007 and 2008, which we considered our group baseline. Most institutions began local Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act (PDSA) cycles by mid‐2009 using the data we provided as they benchmarked their performance against other members of the collaborative, and these continued through 2010. Hospitals were coded and remained anonymous. However, we publicly honored the high performers within the network at a yearly meeting, and urged these centers to share their tools and strategies, which was facilitated through a project Web site.30 All participation was voluntary, and all costs were borne by individuals or their respective centers.

In order to assess data quality, we undertook a validation project for calendar year 2009. We requested local direct chart review of a 10% sample, or a minimum of 10 charts, to confirm reported utilization rates for the therapies and tests we tracked. Any center with less than 80% accuracy was then asked to review data collection methods and make adjustments accordingly. One center identified and resolved a significant data discrepancy and 2 centers refused to participate in the validation project, citing their participation in a large national database for which there was already a very rigorous data validation process (Child Health Corporation of America's Pediatric Health Information System database). Given that we did not uncover major discrepancies in data quality within our network, we did not request further data validation but rather promoted year‐to‐year consistency of collection methods, seeking to collect the same type/quality of data that hospitals use in their own internal performance assessments.

Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad InStat, version 3.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Descriptive statistics (including interquartile range ([IQR], the range from 25th to 75th percentile of the data) are provided. Analysis of process measures over the series of years was performed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), as were intra‐hospital comparisons for all measures. Hospitals were not weighted by volume of admissions, ie, the unit of analysis was the hospital and not individual hospitalizations. Data were analyzed for normality using the method of Kolmogorov and Smirnoff, and in cases where normality was not satisfied (steroids and chest physiotherapy), the data were transformed and nonparametric methods were used. Post‐test adjustment for multiple comparisons was done using the TukeyKramer test in cases where ANOVA P values were <0.05. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze contingency tables for categorical variables such as presence or absence of a protocol.

RESULTS

Data encompassing 11,568 bronchiolitis hospitalizations in 17 centers, for calendar years 2007 to 2010, were analyzed for this report. A total of 31 centers ever participated in the project; however, this report is restricted to centers who participated for the entirety of the project from 2008 through 2010, and who consented to have their data reported. Specifically, 18 centers met inclusion criteria and 1 center opted out of the project, leaving the 17 centers described in Table 1. The overall network makeup shifted each year, but was always more than 80% non‐freestanding children's hospitals and approximately 30% urban, as defined as located in a population center of more than 1 million. A large majority of the participants did not have a local bronchiolitis protocol or guideline at the start of the project, although 88% of participants adopted some form of protocolized care by 2010. Calendar years 2007 and 2008 served as our network baseline, with most interventions (in institutions where they occurred) begun by calendar year 2009. The level of intervention varied greatly among institutions, with a few institutions doing nothing more than benchmarking their performance.

Characteristics of Participating Hospitals: VIP Bronchiolitis Project
Participating Centers (Alphabetically by State)Type of FacilityAverage Yearly Bronchiolitis AdmissionsApproximate Medicaid (%)Guideline Prior to Joining Project?Location
  • NOTE: Urban defined as location within a population center of 1 million. Abbreviations: CHWH, children's hospital within a hospital; FSCH, freestanding children's hospital; PEDS, pediatric unit within a larger hospital; VIP, Value in Inpatient Pediatrics network.

Scottsdale Healthcare Scottsdale, AZPEDS13326NoSuburban
Shands Hospital for Children at the University of Florida Gainesville, FLCHWH10759NoSuburban
Children's Hospital of Illinois Peoria, ILCHWH9715NoSuburban
Kentucky Children's Hospital Lexington, KYCHWH13560YesSuburban
Our Lady of the Lake Baton Rouge, LACHWH13870NoSuburban
The Barbara Bush Children's Hospital Portland, MECHWH3141YesSuburban
Franklin Square Hospital Center Baltimore, MDPEDS6640NoSuburban
Anne Arundel Medical Center Annapolis, MDCHWH5636NoSuburban
Children's Hospital at Montefiore Bronx, NYCHWH22065NoUrban
Mission Children's Hospital Asheville, NCCHWH11221YesSuburban
Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital Cleveland, OHCHWH5824YesUrban
Palmetto Health Children's Hospital Columbia, SCCHWH18160NoSuburban
East Tennessee Children's Hospital Knoxville, TNFSCH37360NoSuburban
Texas Children's Hospital Houston, TXFSCH61960YesUrban
Christus Santa Rosa Children's Hospital San Antonio, TXCHWH39071NoUrban
Children's Hospital of The Kings' Daughters Norfolk, VAFSCH30360NoSuburban
Children's Hospital of Richmond Richmond, VACHWH4060NoUrban

Mean length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, and variable direct costs did not differ significantly during the project time period. Mean LOS for the network ranged from a low of 2.4 days (IQR, 2.22.8 days) to a high of 2.7 days (IQR, 2.43.1 days), and mean readmission rates ranged from 1.2% (IQR, 0.7%1.8%) to 1.7% (IQR, 0.7%2.5%) during the project. Mean variable direct costs ranged from $1639 (IQR, $1383$1864) to $1767 (IQR, $1365$2320).

Table 2 describes the mean overall utilization of bronchodilators, chest radiography, RSV testing, steroids, and chest physiotherapy among the group from 2007 to 2010. By 2010, we saw a 46% decline in the volume of bronchodilator used within the network, a 3.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45.8) dose per patient absolute decrease (P < 0.01). We also saw a 12% (95% CI 5%25%) absolute decline in the overall percentage of patients exposed to any bronchodilator (P < 0.01). Finally, there was a 10% (95% CI 3%18%) absolute decline in the overall utilization of any chest physiotherapy (P < 0.01). The project did not demonstrate a significant impact on utilization of corticosteroids, chest radiography, or viral testing, although several centers achieved significant decreases on a local level (data not shown).

Network Mean Utilization of Targeted Therapies
Utilization Measure2007200820092010
No. (IQR)No. (IQR)No. (IQR)No. (IQR)
  • Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; NS, not significant; RSV, respiratory syncytial virus.

Bronchodilator doses per patient (P < 0.01)7.9 (4.69.8)6.4 (4.08.4)5.7 (3.67.6)4.3 (3.05.9)
Any bronchodilators (P < 0.01)70% (59%83%)67% (56%77%)68% (61%76%)58% (46%69%)
Chest physiotherapy (P < 0.01)14% (5%19%)10% (1%8%)7% (2%6%)4% (1%7%)
Chest radiography (P = NS)64% (54%81%)66% (55%79%)64% (60%73%)59% (50%73%)
Any steroids (P = NS)21% (14%26%)20% (15%28%)21% (14%22%)16% (13%25%)
RSV testing (P = NS)64% (52%84%)61% (49%78%)62% (50%78%)57% (44%75%)

We analyzed within‐hospital trends as well. Figure 1 describes intra‐hospital change over the course of the project for overall bronchodilator usage. In this analysis, 15 of 17 hospitals (88%) achieved a significant decrease in overall bronchodilator utilization by 2010. (Hospitals 27 and 29 were unable to provide 2007 baseline data.) For doses per patient, 15 of 17 institutions provided data on this measure, and 12 of 15 (80%) achieved significant decreases (Figure 2). Of note, the institutions failing to achieve significant decreases in bronchodilator utilization entered the project with utilization rates that were already significantly below network mean at the start of the project. (Institutions failing to improve are denoted with an asterisk in Figures 1 and 2.) Since most institutions made significant improvements in bronchodilator utilization over time, we looked for correlates of failure to decrease utilization. The strongest association for failure to improve during the project period was use of a protocol prior to joining the network (odds ratio [OR] = 11, 95% CI 261).

Figure 1
Intra‐hospital change in bronchodilator utilization. Asterisks indicate institutions failing to improve.
Figure 2
Intra‐hospital trends in volume of bronchodilator utilization. Asterisks indicate institutions failing to improve.

DISCUSSION

We demonstrated a significant decline in utilization of bronchodilators and chest physiotherapy in inpatient bronchiolitis within a voluntary quality collaborative focused on benchmarking without employing intensive interventions. This observation is important in that it demonstrates real‐world efficacy for our methods. Prior literature has clearly demonstrated that local bronchiolitis guidelines are effective; however, our data on over 11,000 hospitalizations from a broad array of inpatient settings continue to show a high rate of overutilization. We facilitated dissemination and sharing of guideline‐related tools primarily electronically, and capitalized on perceived peer‐group frustration with inefficient management of a high‐volume, high‐utilization disease. While the project leadership had varying degrees of advanced training in quality improvement methodology, the majority of the site leaders were self‐taught and trained while on the job. Our inclusive collaborative had some success using pragmatic and low‐resource methods which we believe is a novel approach to the issue of overutilization.

These considerations are highlighted given the pressing need to find more efficient and scalable means of bending the cost curve of healthcare in the United States. Learning collaboratives are a relatively new model for improvement, with some history in pediatrics,31, 32 and are attractive because of their potential to generate both widespread capacity for change as well as direct improvement. Both cystic fibrosis31 and neonatology collaboratives32 have been celebrated for their positive impacts on children's healthcare, and both are testaments to the power inherent in creating a community of like‐minded individuals. One of the most popular models for learning collaboratives remains the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series; however, this model is resource intensive in that it typically involves large teams and several yearly face‐to‐face meetings, with significant monetary investment on the part of hospitals. On the other hand, virtual collaboratives have produced mixed results with respect to quality improvement,33 so there is a continued need to maximize our learning about what works efficiently. Our collaborative was able to successfully disseminate tools developed in large academic institutions to be applied in smaller and more varied settings, where resources for quality improvement activities were limited.

One possible reason for any successes in this project was the existence of a well‐known guideline for the management of bronchiolitis published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2006. This guideline recommends primarily symptomatic care, and has a statement supporting the contention that routine use of our targeted therapies is unnecessary. It allows for a trial of bronchodilator, but specifically states that all trials should be accompanied by the use of an objective measure of improvement (typically interpreted to mean a respiratory distress score). A guideline sanctioned by an important national organization of pediatricians was invaluable, and we believe that it should serve as a basis for any nationally promoted inpatient quality measure for this very common pediatric illness. The existence of the AAP guideline also highlights the possibility that our results are merely representative of secular trends in utilization in bronchiolitis care, since we had no control group. The available literature on national guidelines has shown mixed and quite modest impacts in other countries.28, 34 Most of our group took active steps to operationalize the guidelines as part of their participation in this collaborative, though they might have done similar work anyway due to the increasing importance of quality improvement in hospitalist culture over the years of the project.

The project did not demonstrate any impact on steroid utilization, or on rates of obtaining chest radiography or viral testing, despite expressly targeting these widely overused interventions. These modalities are often employed in the emergency department and, as a collaborative of pediatric hospitalists, we did not have specific emergency department participation which we recognize as a major weakness and potential impediment to further progress. We hope to collaborate with our respective emergency departments in the future on these particular measures. We also noted that many institutions were inflexible about foregoing viral testing, due to infection control issues arising from the need to cohort patients in shared rooms based on RSV positivity during the busy winter months. A few institutions were able to alter their infection control policies using the strategy of assuming all children with bronchiolitis had RSV (ie, choosing to use both contact precautions and to wear a mask when entering rooms), though this was not universally popular. Finally, we recognize a missed opportunity in not collecting dose per patient level data for steroids, which might have allowed us to distinguish hospitals with ongoing inpatient utilization of steroids from those with only emergency department usage.

Another significant limitation of this project was the lack of annual assessments of data quality. However, we believe our findings are still useful and important, even with this obvious limitation. Most quality improvement work is done using hospital‐supplied data gleaned from administrative databases, exactly the sources used in this project. Key decisions are made in most hospitals in the country based on data of similar quality. Further limitations of the project relate to the issue of replicability. The disease process we addressed is a major source of frustration to pediatric hospitalists, and our sample likely consisted of the most highly motivated individuals, as they sought out and joined a group with the express purpose of decreasing unnecessary utilization in bronchiolitis. We believe this limitation highlights the likely need for quality measures to emerge organically out of a community of practice when resources are limited, ie, we do not believe we would have had significant success using our methods with an unpopular or externally imposed quality measure.

Although a detailed analysis of costs was beyond the scope of the current project, it is possible that decreased utilization resulted in overall cost savings, despite the fact that our data did not demonstrate a significant change in network‐level average variable direct costs related to bronchiolitis. It has been suggested that such savings may be particularly difficult to demonstrate objectively, especially when the principal costs targeted are labor‐based.35 LOS did not significantly vary during the project, whereas the use of labor‐intensive therapies like nebulized bronchodilators and chest physiotherapy declined. It is, however, quite possible that the decreased utilization we demonstrated was accompanied by a concomitant increase in utilization of other unmeasured therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

A volunteer, peer‐group collaborative focused on benchmarking decreased utilization of bronchodilators and chest physiotherapy in bronchiolitis, though had no impact on overuse of other unnecessary therapies and tests.

Acknowledgements

The following authors have participated in the production of this work by: Conception and design of project: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate; Acquisition of data: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, Ryan; Analysis and interpretation of data: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, Ryan; Drafting the article: Ralston, Garber, Shen; Revising it critically for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published: Ralston, Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, Ryan.

Disclosures: The VIP network receives financial/administrative support from the American Academy of Pediatrics through the Quality Improvement Innovations Network. Dr Ralston receives financial support from the American Academy of Pediatrics as editor of the AAP publication, Hospital Pediatrics. Drs Garber, Narang, Shen, Pate, Pope, Lossius, Croland, Bennett, Jewell, Krugman, Robbins, Nazif, Liewehr, Miller, Marks, Pappas, Pardue, Quinonez, Fine, and Ryan report no conflicts.

References
  1. HCUPnet. Kids Inpatient Database 2006. Available at: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/. Accessed February 6, 2011.
  2. Leader S, Kohlhase K. Recent trends in severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) among US infants, 1997 to 2000. J Pediatr. 2003;143:S127S132.
  3. Yorita KL, Holman RC, Sejvar JJ, Steiner CA, Schonberger LB. Infectious disease hospitalizations among infants in the United States. Pediatrics. 2008;121:244252.
  4. Smyth RL, Openshaw PJ. Bronchiolitis. Lancet. 2006;368:312322.
  5. Boyce TG, Mellen BG, Mitchel EF, Wright PF, Griffin MR. Rates of hospitalization for respiratory syncytial virus infection among children in Medicaid. J Pediatr. 2000;137:865870.
  6. Subcommittee on the Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis, 2004–2006. Clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118:17741793.
  7. Mansbach JM, Emond JA, Camargo CA. Bronchiolitis in US emergency departments 1992 to 2000: epidemiology and practice variation. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005;21:242247.
  8. Plint AC, Johnson DW, Wiebe N, et al. Practice variation among pediatric emergency departments in the treatment of bronchiolitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:353360.
  9. Mallory MD, Shay DK, Garrett J, Bordley WC. Bronchiolitis management preferences and the influence of pulse oximetry and respiratory rate on the decision to admit. Pediatrics. 2003;111:e45e51.
  10. Conway PH, Edwards S, Stucky ER, Chiang VW, Ottolini MC, Landrigan CP. Variations in management of common inpatient pediatric illnesses: hospitalists and community pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2006;118:441447.
  11. Landrigan CP, Conway PH, Stucky ER, Chiang VW, Ottolini MC. Variation in pediatric hospitalists' use of proven and unproven therapies: a study from the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings (PRIS) network. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:292298.
  12. Wang EE, Law BJ, Boucher FD, et al. Pediatric Investigators Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada (PICNIC) study of admission and management variation in patients hospitalized with respiratory syncytial viral lower respiratory tract infection. J Pediatr. 1996;129:390395.
  13. Willson DF, Horn SD, Hendley JO, Smout R, Gassaway J. Effect of practice variation on resource utilization in infants hospitalized for viral lower respiratory illness. Pediatrics. 2001;108:851855.
  14. Gadomski AM, Brower M. Bronchodilators for bronchiolitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 8;(12):CD001266.
  15. Perotta C, Ortiz Z, Roque M. Chest physiotherapy for acute bronchiolitis in pediatric patients between 0 and 24 months old. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD004873.
  16. Hartling L, Bialy LM, Vandermeer B, et al. Epinephrine for bronchiolitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15;(6):CD003123.
  17. Fernandes RM, Bialy LM, Vandermeer B, et al. Glucocorticoids for acute bronchiolitis in infants and young children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 6;(10):CD004878.
  18. Davison C, Ventre KM, Lucetti M, Randolph AG. Efficacy of interventions for bronchiolitis in critically ill infants: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2004;5:482489.
  19. Pelletier AJ, Mansbach JM, Camargo CA. Direct medical costs of bronchiolitis hospitalizations in the United States. Pediatrics. 2006;118(6):24182423.
  20. Perlstein PH, Kotagal UR, Bolling C, et al. Evaluation of an evidence‐based guideline for bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 1999;104(6):13341341.
  21. Adcock PM, Sanders CL, Marshall GS. Standardizing the care of bronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152(8):739744.
  22. Muething S, Schoettker PJ, Gerhardt WE, Atherton HD, Britto MT, Kotagal UR. Decreasing overuse of therapies in the treatment of bronchiolitis by incorporating evidence at the point of care. J Pediatr. 2004;144:703710.
  23. King WJ, Le Saux N, Sampson M, Gaboury I, Norris M, Moher D. Effect of point of care information on inpatient management of bronchiolitis. BMC Pediatr. 2007;7:4.
  24. Cheney J, Barber S, Altamirano L, et al. A clinical pathway for bronchiolitis is effective in reducing readmission rates. J Pediatr. 2005;147:622626.
  25. Perlstein PH, Kotagal UR, Schoettker PJ, et al. Sustaining the implementation of an evidence‐based guideline for bronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:10011007.
  26. David M, Luc‐Vanuxem C, Loundou A, Bosdure E, Auquier P, Dubus JC. Assessment of the French Consensus Conference for Acute Viral Bronchiolitis on outpatient management: progress between 2003 and 2008 [in French]. Arch Pediatr. 2010;17:125131.
  27. Kotagal UR, Robbins JM, Kini NM, Schoettker PJ, Atherton HD, Kirschbaum MS. Impact of a bronchiolitis guideline: a multisite demonstration project. Chest. 2002;121:17891797.
  28. Barben J, Kuehni CE, Trachsel D, Hammer J. Management of acute bronchiolitis: can evidence based guidelines alter clinical practice? Thorax. 2008;63:11031109.
  29. Dougherty D, Conway PH. The “3 T's” roadmap to transform US health care: the “how” of high quality care. JAMA. 2008;299(19):23192321.
  30. The VIP Network. Available at: http://www.vipnetwork.webs.com. Accessed October 5, 2010.
  31. Quon BS, Goss CH. A story of success: continuous quality improvement in cystic fibrosis in the USA. Thorax. 2011;66:11061168.
  32. Payne NR, Finkelstein MJ, Liu M, Kaempf JW, Sharek PJ, Olsen S. NICU practices and outcomes associated with 9 years of quality improvement collaboratives. Pediatrics. 2010;125:437446.
  33. Speroff T, Ely EW, Greevey R, et al. Quality improvement projects target health care‐associated infections: comparing virtual collaborative and toolkit approaches. J Hosp Med. 2011;6:271278.
  34. Touzet S, Réfabert L, Letrilliart L, Ortolan B, Colin C. Impact of consensus development conference guidelines on primary care of bronchiolitis: are national guidelines being followed? J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:651656.
  35. Rauh SS, Wadsworth EB, Weeks WB, Weinstein JN. The savings illusion—why clinical quality improvement fails to deliver bottom‐line results. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:e48.
References
  1. HCUPnet. Kids Inpatient Database 2006. Available at: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/. Accessed February 6, 2011.
  2. Leader S, Kohlhase K. Recent trends in severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) among US infants, 1997 to 2000. J Pediatr. 2003;143:S127S132.
  3. Yorita KL, Holman RC, Sejvar JJ, Steiner CA, Schonberger LB. Infectious disease hospitalizations among infants in the United States. Pediatrics. 2008;121:244252.
  4. Smyth RL, Openshaw PJ. Bronchiolitis. Lancet. 2006;368:312322.
  5. Boyce TG, Mellen BG, Mitchel EF, Wright PF, Griffin MR. Rates of hospitalization for respiratory syncytial virus infection among children in Medicaid. J Pediatr. 2000;137:865870.
  6. Subcommittee on the Diagnosis and Management of Bronchiolitis, 2004–2006. Clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118:17741793.
  7. Mansbach JM, Emond JA, Camargo CA. Bronchiolitis in US emergency departments 1992 to 2000: epidemiology and practice variation. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005;21:242247.
  8. Plint AC, Johnson DW, Wiebe N, et al. Practice variation among pediatric emergency departments in the treatment of bronchiolitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:353360.
  9. Mallory MD, Shay DK, Garrett J, Bordley WC. Bronchiolitis management preferences and the influence of pulse oximetry and respiratory rate on the decision to admit. Pediatrics. 2003;111:e45e51.
  10. Conway PH, Edwards S, Stucky ER, Chiang VW, Ottolini MC, Landrigan CP. Variations in management of common inpatient pediatric illnesses: hospitalists and community pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2006;118:441447.
  11. Landrigan CP, Conway PH, Stucky ER, Chiang VW, Ottolini MC. Variation in pediatric hospitalists' use of proven and unproven therapies: a study from the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings (PRIS) network. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:292298.
  12. Wang EE, Law BJ, Boucher FD, et al. Pediatric Investigators Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada (PICNIC) study of admission and management variation in patients hospitalized with respiratory syncytial viral lower respiratory tract infection. J Pediatr. 1996;129:390395.
  13. Willson DF, Horn SD, Hendley JO, Smout R, Gassaway J. Effect of practice variation on resource utilization in infants hospitalized for viral lower respiratory illness. Pediatrics. 2001;108:851855.
  14. Gadomski AM, Brower M. Bronchodilators for bronchiolitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 8;(12):CD001266.
  15. Perotta C, Ortiz Z, Roque M. Chest physiotherapy for acute bronchiolitis in pediatric patients between 0 and 24 months old. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD004873.
  16. Hartling L, Bialy LM, Vandermeer B, et al. Epinephrine for bronchiolitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15;(6):CD003123.
  17. Fernandes RM, Bialy LM, Vandermeer B, et al. Glucocorticoids for acute bronchiolitis in infants and young children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 6;(10):CD004878.
  18. Davison C, Ventre KM, Lucetti M, Randolph AG. Efficacy of interventions for bronchiolitis in critically ill infants: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2004;5:482489.
  19. Pelletier AJ, Mansbach JM, Camargo CA. Direct medical costs of bronchiolitis hospitalizations in the United States. Pediatrics. 2006;118(6):24182423.
  20. Perlstein PH, Kotagal UR, Bolling C, et al. Evaluation of an evidence‐based guideline for bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 1999;104(6):13341341.
  21. Adcock PM, Sanders CL, Marshall GS. Standardizing the care of bronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152(8):739744.
  22. Muething S, Schoettker PJ, Gerhardt WE, Atherton HD, Britto MT, Kotagal UR. Decreasing overuse of therapies in the treatment of bronchiolitis by incorporating evidence at the point of care. J Pediatr. 2004;144:703710.
  23. King WJ, Le Saux N, Sampson M, Gaboury I, Norris M, Moher D. Effect of point of care information on inpatient management of bronchiolitis. BMC Pediatr. 2007;7:4.
  24. Cheney J, Barber S, Altamirano L, et al. A clinical pathway for bronchiolitis is effective in reducing readmission rates. J Pediatr. 2005;147:622626.
  25. Perlstein PH, Kotagal UR, Schoettker PJ, et al. Sustaining the implementation of an evidence‐based guideline for bronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:10011007.
  26. David M, Luc‐Vanuxem C, Loundou A, Bosdure E, Auquier P, Dubus JC. Assessment of the French Consensus Conference for Acute Viral Bronchiolitis on outpatient management: progress between 2003 and 2008 [in French]. Arch Pediatr. 2010;17:125131.
  27. Kotagal UR, Robbins JM, Kini NM, Schoettker PJ, Atherton HD, Kirschbaum MS. Impact of a bronchiolitis guideline: a multisite demonstration project. Chest. 2002;121:17891797.
  28. Barben J, Kuehni CE, Trachsel D, Hammer J. Management of acute bronchiolitis: can evidence based guidelines alter clinical practice? Thorax. 2008;63:11031109.
  29. Dougherty D, Conway PH. The “3 T's” roadmap to transform US health care: the “how” of high quality care. JAMA. 2008;299(19):23192321.
  30. The VIP Network. Available at: http://www.vipnetwork.webs.com. Accessed October 5, 2010.
  31. Quon BS, Goss CH. A story of success: continuous quality improvement in cystic fibrosis in the USA. Thorax. 2011;66:11061168.
  32. Payne NR, Finkelstein MJ, Liu M, Kaempf JW, Sharek PJ, Olsen S. NICU practices and outcomes associated with 9 years of quality improvement collaboratives. Pediatrics. 2010;125:437446.
  33. Speroff T, Ely EW, Greevey R, et al. Quality improvement projects target health care‐associated infections: comparing virtual collaborative and toolkit approaches. J Hosp Med. 2011;6:271278.
  34. Touzet S, Réfabert L, Letrilliart L, Ortolan B, Colin C. Impact of consensus development conference guidelines on primary care of bronchiolitis: are national guidelines being followed? J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:651656.
  35. Rauh SS, Wadsworth EB, Weeks WB, Weinstein JN. The savings illusion—why clinical quality improvement fails to deliver bottom‐line results. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:e48.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 8(1)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 8(1)
Page Number
25-30
Page Number
25-30
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Decreasing unnecessary utilization in acute bronchiolitis care: Results from the value in inpatient pediatrics network
Display Headline
Decreasing unnecessary utilization in acute bronchiolitis care: Results from the value in inpatient pediatrics network
Sections
Article Source

Copyright © 2012 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital at Dartmouth, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media
Media Files