BACKGROUND: The 2011 Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) guideline recommends narrow-spectrum antimicrobial therapy for most children hospitalized with CAP. However, few studies have assessed the effectiveness of this strategy. METHODS: Using data from 43 children’s hospitals, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare outcomes and resource utilization among children hospitalized with CAP between 2005 and 2011 receiving either parenteral ampicillin/penicillin (narrow spectrum) or ceftriaxone/cefotaxime (broad spectrum). Children with complex chronic conditions, interhospital transfers, recent hospitalization, or the occurrence of any of the following during the first 2 calendar days of hospitalization were excluded: pleural drainage procedure, admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, death, or hospital discharge. RESULTS: Overall, 13 954 children received broad-spectrum therapy (89.7%) and 1610 received narrow-spectrum therapy (10.3%). The median length of stay was 3 days (interquartile range 3–4) in the broad- and narrow-spectrum therapy groups (adjusted difference 0.12 days, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.02 to 0.26). One hundred fifty-six children (1.1%) receiving broad-spectrum therapy and 13 children (0.8%) receiving narrow-spectrum therapy were admitted to intensive care (adjusted odds ratio 0.85, 95% CI: 0.27 to 2.73). Readmission occurred for 321 children (2.3%) receiving broad-spectrum therapy and 39 children (2.4%) receiving narrow-spectrum therapy (adjusted odds ratio 0.85, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.63). Median costs for the hospitalization were $3992 and $4375 (adjusted difference –$14.4, 95% CI: –177.1 to 148.3). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes and costs for children hospitalized with CAP are not different when treatment is with narrow- compared with broad-spectrum therapy.

The availability of a CAP CPG had minimal impact on resource utilization and was not associated with cost or hospital LOS. Institutional CPGs, however, did influence patterns of antimicrobial use.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a quality improvement collaborative on quality and efficiency of pediatric discharges. METHODS: This was a multicenter quality improvement collaborative including 11 tertiary-care freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States, conducted between November 1, 2011 and October 31, 2012. Sites selected interventions from a change package developed by an expert panel. Multiple plan–do–study–act cycles were conducted on patient populations selected by each site. Data on discharge-related care failures, family readiness for discharge, and 72-hour and 30-day readmissions were reported monthly by each site. Surveys of each site were also conducted to evaluate the use of various change strategies. RESULTS: Most sites addressed discharge planning, quality of discharge instructions, and providing postdischarge support by phone. There was a significant decrease in discharge-related care failures, from 34% in the first project quarter to 21% at the end of the collaborative (P < .05). There was also a significant improvement in family perception of readiness for discharge, from 85% of families reporting the highest rating to 91% (P < .05). There was no improvement in unplanned 72-hour (0.7% vs 1.1%, P = .29) and slight worsening of the 30-day readmission rate (4.5% vs 6.3%, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Institutions that participated in the collaborative had lower rates of discharge-related care failures and improved family readiness for discharge. There was no significant improvement in unplanned readmissions. More studies are needed to evaluate which interventions are most effective and to assess feasibility in non–children’s hospital settings.

This multidisciplinary improvement initiative resulted in a significant reduction in use for bronchiolitis care at our institution. Our approach, which included a novel, real-time data dashboard and interventions such as individual providers pledging to reduce use, may have the potential to reduce overuse in other settings and diseases.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Croup is a clinical diagnosis, and the available evidence suggests that, except in rare cases, ancillary testing, such as radiologic imaging, is not helpful. Given the paucity of inpatient-specific evidence for croup care, we hypothesized that there would be marked variability in the use of not routinely indicated resources (NRIRs). Our primary study objective was to describe the variation and predictors of variation in the use of NRIRs.

Introduction: Healthcare costs are rising, and clinical pathways (CPW) are one means to promote high-value care by standardizing care and improving outcomes without compromising cost or quality. However, providers do not always follow CPW, and our understanding of their perceptions is limited. Our objective was to examine pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) and pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physician perspectives of CPW. Methods: We conducted semistructured, in-depth, one-on-one qualitative interviews with PHM and PEM physicians between February 2017 and August 2017. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and accuracy verified. Using an inductive analytic strategy, we systematically coded the data to identify themes. Results: We interviewed 15 PHM and 15 PEM physicians. These providers identified many benefits and limitations of CPW, which positively or negatively impact resource utilization, communication, education of personnel, patients, and families, as well as practice behaviors and attitudes. Perceived benefits included (1) reduction of unnecessary utilization, (2) standardization of care, (3) improved communication, (4) education of oneself and others, and (5) confidence and validation when actions align with CPW. Limitations of CPW were (1) resource utilization for revisions, updates, and dissemination; (2) “tunnel vision” and cognitive biases; (3) loss of autonomy; (4) prescriptive medicine; (5) information overload; (6) pressure to adhere; and (7) guilt if actions do not align with CPW. Conclusions: CPW are tools with advantages and disadvantages that are used and viewed differently by providers. Such insight into how physicians perceive CPW may help to optimize hospital improvement work and enhance high-value care.

BACKGROUND: With increasingly complex pediatric inpatients, efficient and effective hospital discharge requires optimal interdisciplinary care coordination and communication. We describe the development of a discharge readiness report (DRR) for the electronic health record (EHR), an integrated summary of discharge-related information organized into a highly visible and easily accessible report.

In hospitals, improvers and implementers use quality improvement science (QIS) and less frequently implementation research (IR) to improve health care and health outcomes. Narrowly defined quality improvement (QI) guided by QIS focuses on transforming systems of care to improve health care quality and delivery and IR focuses on developing approaches to close the gap between what is known (research findings) and what is practiced (by clinicians). However, QI regularly involves implementing evidence and IR consistently addresses organizational and setting-level factors. The disciplines share a common end goal, namely, to improve health outcomes, and work to understand and change the same actors in the same settings often encountering and addressing the same challenges. QIS has its origins in industry and IR in behavioral science and health services research. Despite overlap in purpose, the 2 sciences have evolved separately. Thought leaders in QIS and IR have argued the need for improved collaboration between the disciplines. The Veterans Health Administration’s Quality Enhancement Research Initiative has successfully employed QIS methods to implement evidence-based practices more rapidly into clinical practice, but similar formal collaborations between QIS and IR are not widespread in other health care systems. Acute care teams are well positioned to improve care delivery and implement the latest evidence. We provide an overview of QIS and IR; examine the key characteristics of QIS and IR, including strengths and limitations of each discipline; and present specific recommendations for integration and collaboration between the 2 approaches to improve the impact of QI and implementation efforts in the hospital setting.