OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether significant variations in the use of intravenous rehydration existed among institutions, controlling for clinical variables, and to assess variations in the use of ancillary therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of children 3 to 48 months of age who presented to 11 emergency departments with acute gastroenteritis, using surveys, medical record reviews, and telephone follow-up evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 647 eligible children were enrolled and underwent chart review; 69% (446 of 647 children) participated in the survey, and 89% of survey participants (398 of 446 children) had complete follow-up data. Twenty-three percent (149 of 647 children) received intravenous rehydration (range: 6%-66%; P < .001) and 13% (81 of 647 children) received ondansetron (range: 0%-38%; P < .001). Children who received intravenous rehydration had lower Canadian Triage Acuity Scale scores at presentation (3.1 ± 0.5 vs 3.5 ± 0.5; P < .0001). Regression analysis revealed that the greatest predictor of intravenous rehydration was institution location (odds ratio: 3.0 [95% confidence interval: 1.8-5.0]). Children who received intravenous rehydration at the index visit were more likely to have an unscheduled follow-up health care provider visit (29% vs 19%; P = .05) and to revisit an emergency department (20% vs 9%; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, intravenous rehydration and ondansetron use varied dramatically. Use of intravenous rehydration at the index visit was significantly associated with the institution providing care and was not associated with a reduction in the need for follow-up care.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether significant variations in the use of intravenous rehydration existed among institutions, controlling for clinical variables, and to assess variations in the use of ancillary therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of children 3 to 48 months of age who presented to 11 emergency departments with acute gastroenteritis, using surveys, medical record reviews, and telephone follow-up evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 647 eligible children were enrolled and underwent chart review; 69% (446 of 647 children) participated in the survey, and 89% of survey participants (398 of 446 children) had complete follow-up data. Twenty-three percent (149 of 647 children) received intravenous rehydration (range: 6%-66%; P < .001) and 13% (81 of 647 children) received ondansetron (range: 0%-38%; P < .001). Children who received intravenous rehydration had lower Canadian Triage Acuity Scale scores at presentation (3.1 ± 0.5 vs 3.5 ± 0.5; P < .0001). Regression analysis revealed that the greatest predictor of intravenous rehydration was institution location (odds ratio: 3.0 [95% confidence interval: 1.8-5.0]). Children who received intravenous rehydration at the index visit were more likely to have an unscheduled follow-up health care provider visit (29% vs 19%; P = .05) and to revisit an emergency department (20% vs 9%; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, intravenous rehydration and ondansetron use varied dramatically. Use of intravenous rehydration at the index visit was significantly associated with the institution providing care and was not associated with a reduction in the need for follow-up care.
Authors: Marissa A Hendrickson; Jennifer Zaremba; Andrew R Wey; Philippe R Gaillard; Anupam B Kharbanda Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Adam C Levine; Karen J O'Connell; David Schnadower; T John M VanBuren; Prashant Mahajan; Katrina F Hurley; Phillip Tarr; Cody S Olsen; Naveen Poonai; Suzanne Schuh; Elizabeth C Powell; Ken J Farion; Robert E Sapien; Cindy G Roskind; Alexander J Rogers; Seema Bhatt; Serge Gouin; Cheryl Vance; Stephen B Freedman Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 3.288
Authors: Otto G Vanderkooi; Jianling Xie; Bonita E Lee; Xiao-Li Pang; Linda Chui; Daniel C Payne; Judy MacDonald; Samina Ali; Shannon MacDonald; Steve Drews; Lara Osterreicher; Kelly Kim; Stephen B Freedman Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Stephen B Freedman; Cindy G Roskind; Suzanne Schuh; John M VanBuren; Jesse G Norris; Phillip I Tarr; Katrina Hurley; Adam C Levine; Alexander Rogers; Seema Bhatt; Serge Gouin; Prashant Mahajan; Cheryl Vance; Elizabeth C Powell; Ken J Farion; Robert Sapien; Karen O'Connell; Naveen Poonai; David Schnadower Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 9.703
Authors: Stephen B Freedman; Dion Pasichnyk; Karen J L Black; Eleanor Fitzpatrick; Serge Gouin; Andrea Milne; Lisa Hartling Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mona Jabbour; Janet Curran; Shannon D Scott; Astrid Guttman; Thomas Rotter; Francine M Ducharme; M Diane Lougheed; M Louise McNaughton-Filion; Amanda Newton; Mark Shafir; Alison Paprica; Terry Klassen; Monica Taljaard; Jeremy Grimshaw; David W Johnson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Stephen B Freedman; Bonita E Lee; Marie Louie; Xiao-Li Pang; Samina Ali; Andy Chuck; Linda Chui; Gillian R Currie; James Dickinson; Steven J Drews; Mohamed Eltorki; Tim Graham; Xi Jiang; David W Johnson; James Kellner; Martin Lavoie; Judy MacDonald; Shannon MacDonald; Lawrence W Svenson; James Talbot; Phillip Tarr; Raymond Tellier; Otto G Vanderkooi Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 2.125