Key result
Implementation of a risk-stratified ultrasound scoring system for suspected appendicitis did not significantly alter overall ED stay compared to the pre-implementation period (333 vs 329 minutes, P=0.39).
Why the study?
Does the implementation of a risk-stratified ultrasound scoring system reduce emergency department process times in children evaluated for suspected appendicitis?
Cohort (n=926)
No
Does the implementation of a risk-stratified ultrasound scoring system reduce emergency department process times in children evaluated for suspected appendicitis?
The implementation of a standardized ultrasound scoring system for appendicitis did not significantly alter emergency department process flow times.
No shortening of ED stays seen after appendicitis scoring implementation; leaves open effects on pediatric emergency workflow efficiency.
OBJECTIVES: Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency encountered in the pediatric emergency department (ED). We analyzed the time course of children evaluated for suspected appendicitis in relation to implementation of a risk-stratified ultrasound scoring system and structured reporting template (Appy-Score). METHODS: In July 2013, a 6-level ultrasound (US)-based appendicitis scoring system was developed and implemented. The records of children (age ≤18 years) who underwent limited abdominal US exams for suspected appendicitis at a large academic pediatric ED were reviewed retrospectively. Time periods evaluated were from January 1 to April 1, 2013 (before implementation of the US scoring system, "PRE") and July 1 to October 1, 2013 (after implementation of the US scoring system, "POST"). Times are presented as medians with interquartile range. RESULTS: A total of 926 children were included (median age, 9.5 years [range, 0.1-18 years]; 49% female). Four hundred eighty-one patients were evaluated PRE and 445 POST. When comparing the 2 groups, there were no differences in the PRE and POST periods with regard to time from US ordered to first read (102 vs 112 minutes, P = 0.30), US ordered to disposition (215 vs 208 minutes, P = 0.40) and operating room posting (121 vs 122 minutes, P = 0.59), and overall ED stay (329 vs 333 minutes, P = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: The development of a radiographic appendicitis score, although allowing for a standardized reporting method, did not significantly alter the ED process flow for evaluation of appendicitis. This reflects the complexities in ED throughput and reveals the need for additional factors to change to improve patient flow.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abbas et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Suspected appendicitis (n=926). Risk-stratified ultrasound scoring system and structured reporting template (Appy-Score) vs. Pre-implementation period was evaluated on Overall emergency department stay (minutes) (p=0.39). Implementation of a risk-stratified ultrasound scoring system for suspected appendicitis did not significantly alter overall ED stay compared to the pre-implementation period (333 vs 329 minutes, P=0.39).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: