Changes in the Management of Severe Orbital Infections Over Seventeen Years.

OBJECTIVES: Periorbital and orbital cellulitis are common but serious infections in children. Management of these infections varies because of an absence of clinical guidelines, but it is unclear if management within institutions has changed over time. We compared the management and outcomes of children hospitalized with periorbital and orbital cellulitis in 2 eras. METHODS: Data were extracted from records of children hospitalized at a tertiary care children's hospital with periorbital or orbital cellulitis from 2000 to 2005 and 2012 to 2016. Patient demographics, cross-sectional imaging, antibiotic and corticosteroid use, length of stay, and surgical rates were collected. Data from the eras were compared by using descriptive statistics, t tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Fisher's exact tests, and χ2 tests. RESULTS: There were 318 children included, 143 from 2000 to 2005 and 175 from 2012 to 2016. Compared with the first era, in the second era there were increased rates of MRI (5% vs 11%, P = .04), although rates of computed tomography scan use remained unchanged (60% vs 65%); increased number (1 vs 3, P < .01) and spectrum of antibiotics; increased use of intranasal corticosteroids (3% vs 49%, P < .01); and subspecialty consultation (89% vs 99%, P = .01). There were no differences in length of stay, readmission, or surgical rates between eras. CONCLUSIONS: There has been considerable change in the management of hospitalized children with severe orbital infections at our institution, including the rates of MRI, number and spectrum of antibiotics used, use of adjunctive agents, and increased subspecialty involvement with no observed impact on clinical outcomes. Future research is needed to rationalize antimicrobial therapy and reduce low-value health care.

Care and outcomes of Canadian children hospitalised with periorbital and orbital cellulitis: protocol for a multicentre, retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Skin and soft tissue infections of the eye can be classified based on anatomic location as either anterior to the orbital septum (ie, periorbital cellulitis) or posterior to the orbital septum (ie, orbital cellulitis). These two conditions are often considered together in hospitalised children as clinical differentiation is difficult, especially in young children. Prior studies have identified variation in management of hospitalised children with orbital cellulitis; however, they have been limited either as single centre studies or by the use of administrative data which lacks clinical details important for interpreting variation in care. We aim to describe the care and outcomes of Canadian children hospitalised with periorbital and orbital cellulitis. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This is a multisite retrospective cohort study including previously healthy children aged 2 months to 18 years admitted to hospital with periorbital or orbital cellulitis from 2009 to 2018. Clinical data from medical records from multiple Canadian hospitals will be collected, including community and academic centres. Demographic characteristics and study outcomes will be summarised using descriptive statistics, including diagnostic testing, antibiotic therapy, adjunctive therapy, surgical intervention and clinical outcomes. Variation will be described and evaluated using χ² test or Kruskal-Wallis test. Generalised linear mixed models will be used to identify predictors of surgical intervention and longer length of stay. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval of the study by the Research Ethics Board at each participating site has been obtained prior to data extraction. Study results will be disseminated by presentations at national and international meetings and by publications in high impact open access journals. By identifying important differences in management and outcomes by each hospital, the results will identify areas where care can be improved, practice standardised, unnecessary diagnostic imaging reduced, pharmacotherapy rationalised and where trials are needed.

Day clinic vs. hospital care of pneumonia and severe malnutrition in children under five: a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and costs of managing pneumonia and severe malnutrition in a day clinic (DC) management model (outpatient) vs. hospital care (inpatient). METHODS: Randomised clinical trial where children aged 2 months to 5 years with pneumonia and severe malnutrition were randomly allocated to DC or inpatient hospital care. We used block randomisation of variable length from 8 to 20 and produced computer-generated random numbers that were assigned to one of the two interventions. Successful management was defined as resolution of clinical signs of pneumonia and being discharged from the model of care (DC or hospital) without need for referral to a hospital (DC), or referral to another hospital. All the children in both DC and hospital received intramuscular ceftriaxone, daily nutrition support and micronutrients. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy children were randomly assigned to either DC or hospital care. Successful management was achieved for 184 of 235 (78.3%) by DC alone, vs. 201 of 235 (85.5%) by hospital inpatient care [RR (95% CI) = 0.79 (0.65-0.97), P = 0.02]. During 6 months of follow-up, 30/235 (12.8%) in the DC group and 36/235 (15.3%) required readmission to hospital in the hospital care group [RR (95% CI) = 0.89 (0.67-1.18), P = 0.21]. The average overall healthcare and societal cost was 34% lower in DC (US$ 188 ± 11.7) than in hospital (US$ 285 ± 13.6) (P < 0.001), and costs for households were 33% lower. CONCLUSIONS: There was a 7% greater probability of successful management of pneumonia and severe malnutrition when inpatient hospital care rather than the outpatient day clinic care was the initial method of care. However, where timely referral mechanisms were in place, 94% of children with pneumonia and severe malnutrition were successfully managed initially in a day clinic, and costs were substantially lower than with hospital admission.

OBJECTIFS: Evaluer les résultats cliniques et les coûts de la prise en charge de la pneumonie et de la malnutrition sévère dans un modèle de prise en charge en clinique de jour (CJ) (patients ambulatoires) par rapport à des soins hospitaliers (patients hospitalisés). MÉTHODES: Essai clinique randomisé où les enfants âgés de 2 mois à 5 ans avec une pneumonie et une malnutrition sévère ont été répartis de façon aléatoire en CJ ou à des soins hospitaliers. Nous avons utilisé la randomisation par blocs de longueur variable de 8 à 20 et avons généré des nombres aléatoires par ordinateur qui ont été attribués à l'une des deux interventions. Une prise en charge réussie a été définie comme la résolution des signes cliniques de pneumonie et la sortie du modèle de soins (CJ ou hospitalisation) sans nécessiter un transfert à un hôpital (CJ), ni à un autre hôpital. Tous les enfants du bras CJ et du bras soins hospitaliers ont reçu de la ceftriaxone par voie intramusculaire, un soutien nutritionnel quotidien et des micronutriments. RÉSULTATS: 470 enfants ont été assignés aléatoirement soit à des soins en CJ ou hospitaliers. Une prise en charge réussie a été obtenue pour 184 patients sur 235 (78,3%) en CJ seule contre 201 sur 235 (85,5%) en soins hospitaliers [RR (IC95%) = 0,79 (0,65 - 0,97), p = 0,02]. Au cours des six mois de suivi, 30/235 (12,8%) du groupe CJ et 36/235 (15,3%) du groupe soins hospitaliers ont nécessité une réadmission à l'hôpital [RR (IC95%) = 0,89 (0,67 - 1,18), p = 0,21]. Le coût moyen global des soins de santé et pour la société était de 34% plus faible dans le groupe CJ (188 ± 11,7 USD) que dans le groupe soins hospitaliers (285 ± 13,6 USD) (p < 0,001) et les coûts pour les ménages étaient de 33% inférieurs. CONCLUSIONS: La probabilité d'une prise en charge réussie de la pneumonie et de la malnutrition sévère était 7% plus élevée lorsque les soins hospitaliers plutôt que les soins en CJ étaient les moyens initiaux. Cependant, là où des mécanismes de référence rapides étaient en place, 94% des enfants atteints de pneumonie et de malnutrition sévère ont été pris en charge avec succès dans une clinique de jour et les coûts étaient nettement inférieurs à ceux de soins hospitaliers.