BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) vary in their level of readiness to care for pediatric emergencies. We evaluated the effect of ED pediatric readiness on the mortality of critically ill children. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and New York, focusing on patients aged 0 to 18 years with critical illness, defined as requiring intensive care admission or experiencing death during the encounter. We used ED and inpatient administrative data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project linked to hospital-specific data from the 2013 National Pediatric Readiness Project. The relationship between hospital-specific pediatric readiness and encounter mortality in the entire cohort and in condition-specific subgroups was evaluated by using multivariable logistic regression and fractional polynomials. RESULTS: We studied 20 483 critically ill children presenting to 426 hospitals. The median weighted pediatric readiness score was 74.8 (interquartile range: 59.3-88.0; range: 29.6-100). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality decreased with increasing readiness score (mortality by lowest to highest readiness quartile: 11.1%, 5.4%, 4.9%, and 3.4%; P , .001 for trend). Adjusting for age, chronic complex conditions, and severity of illness, presentation to a hospital in the highest readiness quartile was associated with decreased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio compared with the lowest quartile: 0.25; 95% confidence interval: 0.18-0.37; P , .001). Similar results were seen in specific subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Presentation to hospitals with a high pediatric readiness score is associated with decreased mortality. Efforts to increase ED readiness for pediatric emergencies may improve patient outcomes. WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: The majority of children present to general emergency departments (EDs) that may be underprepared to care for them. Previous work has evaluated the pediatric readiness of EDs, but it is unknown whether pediatric readiness is associated with improved patient outcomes. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Presentation to an ED with lower pediatric readiness was associated with increased risk-adjusted mortality for children with critical illness. Efforts to improve ED pediatric readiness may reduce mortality for these children.

Beginning in 2013, New York State implemented regulations mandating that hospitals implement evidence-based protocols for sepsis management, as well as report data on protocol adherence and clinical outcomes to the state government. The association between these mandates and sepsis outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between New York State sepsis regulations and the outcomes of patients hospitalized with sepsis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with sepsis in New York State and in 4 control states (Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) using all-payer hospital discharge data (January 1, 2011-September 30, 2015) and a comparative interrupted time series analytic approach.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic placed considerable strain on critical care resources. How United States (U.S.) hospitals responded to this crisis is unknown. Research question What actions did U.S. hospitals take to prepare for a potential surge in demand for critical care services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic? Study design and methods From September to November 2020 we surveyed the chief nursing officers of a representative sample of U.S. hospitals regarding organizational actions taken to increase or maintain critical care capacity during the pandemic. We calculated weighted proportions of hospitals for each potential action in order to create estimates across the entire population of U.S. hospitals, accounting for both the sampling strategy and non-response. We also examined whether the types of actions taken varied by the cumulative regional incidence of COVID-19 cases. Results We received responses from 169 of 540 surveyed U.S. hospitals (response rate: 31.3%). Almost all hospitals canceled or postponed elective surgeries (96.7%) and non-surgical procedures (94.8%). Few hospitals created new medical units in areas not typically dedicated to health care (12.9%), and almost none adopted triage protocols (5.6%) or protocols to connect multiple patients to a single ventilator (4.8%). Actions to increase or preserve intensive care unit (ICU) staff, including use of ICU telemedicine, were highly variable, without any single dominant strategy. Hospitals experiencing higher incidence of COVID-19 did not consistently take different actions compared to hospitals facing lower incidence. Interpretation Responses of hospitals to the mass need for critical care services due to the COVID-19 pandemic were highly variable. Most hospitals canceled procedures to preserve ICU capacity and scaled up ICU capacity using existing clinical space and staffing. Future work linking hospital response to patient outcomes can inform planning for additional surges of this pandemic or other events in the future.

No abstract

Objectives: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires hospitals to report compliance with a sepsis treatment bundle as part of its Inpatient Quality Reporting Program. We used recently released data from this program to characterize national performance on the sepsis measure, known as SEP-1. Design: Cross-sectional study of United States hospitals participating in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Healthcare Cost Reporting Information System. Setting: General, short-stay, acute-care hospitals in the United States. Measurements and Main Results: We examined the hospital factors associated with reporting SEP-1 data, the hospital factors associated with performance on the SEP-1 measure, and the relationship between SEP-1 performance and performance on other quality measures related to time-sensitive medical conditions. A total of 3,283 hospitals were eligible for the analysis, of which 2,851 (86.8%) reported SEP-1 performance data. SEP-1 reporting was more common in larger, nonprofit hospitals. The most common reason for nonreporting was an inadequate case volume. Among hospitals reporting SEP-1 performance data, overall bundle compliance was generally low, but it varied widely across hospitals (mean and sd: 48.9% ± 19.4%). Compared with hospitals with worse SEP-1 performance, hospitals with better SEP-1 performance tended to be smaller, for-profit, nonteaching, and with intermediate-sized ICUs. Better hospital performance on SEP-1 was associated with higher rates of timely head CT interpretation for stroke patients (rho = 0.16; p < 0.001), more frequent aspirin administration for patients with chest pain or heart attacks (rho = 0.24; p < 0.001) and shorter median time to electrocardiogram for patients with chest pain (rho = –0.12; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The majority of eligible hospitals reported SEP-1 data, and overall bundle compliance was highly variable. SEP-1 performance was associated with structural hospital characteristics and performance on other measures of hospital quality, providing preliminary support for SEP-1 performance as a marker of timely hospital sepsis care.