Preventability of Pediatric 30-Day Readmissions following Ventricular Shunt Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the preventability of 30-day pediatric ventricular shunt readmissions using clinical and administrative data review. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart review of one hundred forty-seven 30-day ventricular shunt readmissions at a tertiary pediatric center from May 2009-April 2013 under 2 scenarios: scenario 1 considered all ventricular shunt failures preventable; and scenario 2 considered shunt failures with excellent/good catheter positioning and no contributing deficiencies in care not preventable. Three physician reviewers independently assessed readmissions to determine their preventability and whether deficiencies in care existed that contributed to the readmission. We also evaluated the degree of interrater agreement in adjudicating readmission preventability. RESULTS: Only 42% of 30-day readmissions following ventricular shunt procedures were preventable when considering all shunt failures as preventable. When classifying shunts with excellent/good proximal catheter position as not preventable, 21% of ventricular shunt readmissions were deemed preventable. Interrater agreement on readmission preventability was high (kappa 0.88). Deficiencies in care existed in 29 readmissions (20%), the largest category being physician related, but not all deficiencies contributed to a readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Significant discrepancy exists in the preventability adjudication of ventricular shunt readmissions between administrative and chart review. Although using administrative data has determined that a majority of readmissions following pediatric ventricular shunt procedures are preventable, our review suggests a significantly lower degree of preventability.

Childhood immunization rates in rural Intibucá, Honduras: an analysis of a local database tool and community health center records for assessing and improving vaccine coverage.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are highly effective at preventing infectious diseases in children, and prevention is especially important in resource-limited countries where treatment is difficult to access. In Honduras, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports very high immunization rates in children. To determine whether or not these estimates accurately depict the immunization coverage in non-urban regions of the country, we compared the WHO data to immunization rates obtained from a local database tool and community health center records in rural Intibucá, Honduras. METHODS: We used data from two sources to comprehensively evaluate immunization rates in the area: 1) census data from a local database and 2) immunization data collected at health centers. We compared these rates using logistic regression, and we compared them to publicly available WHO-reported estimates using confidence interval inclusion. RESULTS: We found that mean immunization rates for each vaccine were high (range 84.4 to 98.8 percent), but rates recorded at the health centers were significantly higher than those reported from the census data (p ≤ 0.001). Combining the results from both databases, the mean rates of four out of five vaccines were less than WHO-reported rates (p <0.05). Overall immunization rates were significantly different between townships (p=0.03). The rates by individual vaccine were similar across townships (p >0.05), except for diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine (p=0.02) and oral polio vaccine (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Immunization rates in Honduras were high across data sources, though most of the rates recorded in rural Honduras were less than WHO-reported rates. Despite geographical difficulties and barriers to access, the local database and Honduran community health workers have developed a thorough system for ensuring that children receive their immunizations on time. The successful integration of community health workers and a database within the Honduran decentralized health system may serve as a model for other immunization programs in resource-limited countries where health care is less accessible.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and promethazine in adults.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to assess whether ondansetron has superior nausea reduction compared with metoclopramide, promethazine, or saline placebo in emergency department (ED) adults. METHODS: This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded superiority trial was intended to enroll a convenience sample of 600 patients. Nausea was evaluated on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline and 30 minutes after treatment. Patients with a minimum preenrollment VAS of 40 mm were randomized to intravenous ondansetron 4 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 12.5 mg, or saline placebo. A 12-mm VAS improvement in nausea severity was deemed clinically important. We measured potential drug adverse effects at baseline and 30 minutes. Patients received approximately 500 mL of saline hydration during the initial 30 minutes. RESULTS: Of 180 subjects who consented, 163 completed the study. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 23-47), and 68% were female. The median 30-minute VAS reductions (95% confidence intervals) and saline volume given for ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -22 (-32 to -15), -30 (-38 to -25.5), -29 (-40 to -21), and -16 (-25 to -3), and 500, 500, 500, and 450, respectively. The median 30-minute VAS differences (95% confidence intervals) between ondansetron and metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -8 (-18.5 to 3), -7 (-21 to -5.5), and 6 (-7 to 20), respectively. We compared the antiemetic efficacy across all treatments with the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows no evidence that ondansetron is superior to metoclopramide and promethazine in reducing nausea in ED adults. Early study termination may have limited detection of ondansetron's superior nausea reduction over saline.