Yang Nikki H, Dharmar Madan, Kuppermann Nathan, Romano Patrick S, Nesbitt Thomas S, Hojman Nayla M, Marcin James P
1Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA. 2Center for Health and Technology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA. 3Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA. 4Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA. 5Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA. 6Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA.
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2015 Mar;16(3):e59-64. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000337.
To compare the appropriateness of hospital admission in eight rural emergency departments among a cohort of acutely ill and injured children who receive telemedicine consultations from pediatric critical care physicians to a cohort of similar children who receive telephone consultations from the same group of physicians.
Retrospective cohort study between January 2003 and May 2012.
Eight rural emergency departments in Northern California.
Acutely ill and injured children triaged to the highest-level triage category who received either telemedicine or telephone consultations.
Telemedicine and telephone consultations.
We compared the overall and stratified observed-to-expected hospital admission ratios between telemedicine and telephone cohorts by calculating the risk of admission using the second generation of Pediatric Risk of Admission score and the Revised Pediatric Emergency Assessment Tool. A total of 138 charts were reviewed; 74 children received telemedicine consultations and 64 received telephone consultations. The telemedicine cohort had fewer hospital admissions compared with the telephone cohort (59.5% vs 87.5%; p < 0.05). Although the telemedicine cohort had lower observed-to-expected admission ratios than the telephone cohort, these differences were not statistically different (Pediatric Risk of Admission II, 2.36 vs 2.58; Revised Pediatric Emergency Assessment Tool, 2.34 vs 2.57). This result did not change when the cohorts were stratified into low (below median) and high (above median) risk of admission cohorts, using either Pediatric Risk of Admission II (low risk, 18.25 vs 22.81; high risk, 1.40 vs 1.54) or Revised Pediatric Emergency Assessment Tool (low risk, 5.35 vs 5.94; high risk, 1.51 vs 1.81).
Although the overall admission rate among patients receiving telemedicine consultations was lower than that among patients receiving telephone consultations, there were no statistically significant differences between the observed-to-expected admission ratios using Pediatric Risk of Admission II and Revised Pediatric Emergency Assessment Tool. Our findings may be reassuring in the context of previous research, suggesting that telemedicine specialty consultations can aid in the delivery of more appropriate, safer, and higher quality of care.
比较在一组急性病和受伤儿童中,接受儿科重症监护医生远程医疗会诊的八个农村急诊科的住院适宜性,与接受同一组医生电话会诊的类似儿童队列的住院适宜性。
2003年1月至2012年5月的回顾性队列研究。
北加利福尼亚的八个农村急诊科。
被分诊到最高级分诊类别的急性病和受伤儿童,他们接受了远程医疗或电话会诊。
远程医疗和电话会诊。
我们通过使用第二代儿科入院风险评分和修订的儿科急诊评估工具计算入院风险,比较了远程医疗队列和电话队列之间总体及分层的观察到预期的住院率。共审查了138份病历;74名儿童接受了远程医疗会诊,64名儿童接受了电话会诊。与电话队列相比,远程医疗队列的住院人数较少(59.5%对87.5%;p<0.05)。尽管远程医疗队列的观察到预期的入院率低于电话队列,但这些差异无统计学意义(儿科入院风险II,2.36对2.58;修订的儿科急诊评估工具,2.34对2.57)。当使用儿科入院风险II(低风险,18.25对22.81;高风险,1.40对1.54)或修订的儿科急诊评估工具(低风险,5.35对5.94;高风险,1.51对1.81)将队列分层为低(低于中位数)和高(高于中位数)入院风险队列时,这一结果并未改变。
尽管接受远程医疗会诊的患者总体住院率低于接受电话会诊的患者,但使用儿科入院风险II和修订的儿科急诊评估工具时,观察到预期的入院率之间无统计学显著差异。在先前研究的背景下,我们的发现可能令人安心,表明远程医疗专科会诊有助于提供更合适、更安全和更高质量的护理。