Browsing by Subject "Patient Safety"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Non-invasive ventilation during paediatric retrieval: a systematised review
    (2018) Cheema, Baljit Kaur; Welzel, Tyson; Rossouw, Beyra
    Background: In hospital critical-care and emergency settings, non-Invasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly used in neonatal and paediatric patients as an alternative to invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV). Critically ill children and babies may need transfer to higher levels of care, but the emergency transport setting is lagging behind the hospital sector in terms of availability of NIV. Aim and objectives: The goal of this study was to assess the evidence on the safety and effectiveness of NIV in children during transportation. Safety outcome measures were intubation or escalation of ventilation mode (during and soon after transport) and adverse event (AE) occurrence during transport. Effectiveness outcome measures related to improvement in clinical parameters during transfer. Methods: A systematised review of the literature was conducted, based on searches of MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE (via Scopus), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), African Index Medicus, Web of Science Citation Index and the World Health Organisation Trials Registry (ICTRP). Two reviewers independently reviewed all identified studies for eligibility, with an initial screening round followed by a full-text review of potentially relevant articles. The quality of studies meeting inclusion criteria was evaluated using an adapted quality assessment tool developed for this study. Results: A total of 1287 records were identified; of these, 12 studies met inclusion criteria. Following quality assessment, eight studies were included and four studies were excluded. There were no randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of intervention, to answer the research question. The included studies were all observational in design: seven studies (n= 708) evaluated in-transport use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and one study (n=150) reported on use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in children during transport. During transport on NIV, 3/858 (0.4%) patients required either intubation (1/708; 0.1%; CPAP studies) or escalation of mode of ventilation (2/150; 1%; HFNC study). In the 24 hours following transfer, 63/650 (13%) of children transferred on NIV, were intubated. The odds of intubation within 24 hours were significantly higher for CPAP transfer 60/500 (12%) compared with HFNC 3/150(2%): OR (95% CI) 6.68 (2.40 - 18.63), p=0.00003. Adverse events, where reported, were found to occur in 2-4% of NIV transports, with use of BVM in 8/334 (2%), desaturation episodes in 9/290 (3%), apnoea in 11/290(4%) and administration of CPR in 0/290 (0%) cases being described. There was insufficient reporting of change in vital signs or clinical condition during transport for meaningful analysis. Conclusion: This study is the first systematised review indicating that NIV use in children during transport is likely to be safe. From the low-reliability evidence available, it was calculated that NIV use in children during transport would result in a 0.4% rate of intubation or escalation during transport and an in-transport adverse event rate of 2-4%. There was insufficient evidence to comment on clinical effectiveness of NIV during transfer. Following NIV transfer, 13% of patients were intubated within 24 hours, with significantly higher odds of intubation in children transported on CPAP compared with HFNC. Recommendations: Further research is needed in order to make firm recommendations regarding the safety and effectiveness of NIV during transport of children. A recommended minimum data set, for the standardised reporting of observational studies of paediatric NIV use during transport, is suggested. It is recommended that transport databases and registries are expanded to include NIV details as well as information regarding the presence or absence of pre-specified adverse events during transport.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Patient waiting times within public Emergency Centres in the Western Cape: describing key performance indicators with respect to waiting times within Western Cape Emergency Centres in 2013-2014
    (2017) Cohen, Kirsten Lesley; Bruijns, Stevan Raynier
    Background: Much emphasis has been placed on Quality Measurements or Key Performance Indicators in Emergency Medicine. Internationally, KPI's are used to measure and improve quality of care, with a major emphasis on waiting times, measured as time-based KPI's. These times are related to the various stages of a patient journey through the Emergency Center. In South Africa this has not been routinely done. The Western Cape has conducted audits in recent years to measure these. This study aims to provide a snapshot of waiting times (specifically time to triage, time to doctor, time to disposition decision and time to departure from the EC) within Cape Town public sector Emergency Centres. Methods: This is a retrospective descriptive study of waiting times for all patients presenting to Emergency Centres in the Western Cape in 2013-2014, as per six monthly waiting times audits conducted by the Western Cape Department of Health. A wide variety of emergency centers were audited, from 24 hour clinics to larger acute hospital based ECs. Results: The proportional acuity difference between hospitals and CHC for the first random 100 folders were statistically no different. Arrival to triage times were universally longer than internationally accepted as safe. The mean time for all-comers across all facilities was just under an hour, the higher acuity patients were triaged significantly faster (half an hour) than the lower acuity patients (hour or more). This difference was significant for hospitals, with a non-significant trend for CHCs. At hospital ECs, green patients were triaged significantly faster than yellow patients; this was not the case at CHCs. The mean time from triage to clinician consultation for all-comers across all facilities (over two hours) was significantly longer at hospitals as compared to clinics. Time from triage to clinician consultation, per triage category, were longer than the SATS guide times, although higher acuity cases were seen faster than lower acuity cases in a stepwise fashion. Red patients waited nearly an hour on average, with no significant difference between hospitals and CHCs. Orange patients had to wait one to two hours; this was significantly longer at hospitals. The mean time from assessment and management to a disposal decision for all-comers was significantly longer at hospitals as compared to CHCs across all priorities. Green patients took a lot longer at hospital compared to CHCs. A similar pattern was seen for the disposition decision to leaving time. The mean total time was significantly longer at hospitals as compared to clinics. Orange and yellow cases stayed significantly longer at hospitals as compared to CHCs; red and green cases also stayed longer at hospitals as compared to CHCs, though this was not significant. Red cases appeared to stay the longest at CHCs. Conclusions: Patients attending CHCs and hospitals are of similar illness acuity, despite policies dictating that sicker patients should be seen at hospitals not CHC level. CHCs have limited packages of care (decision making investigations, management options and expertise), and can only manage patients to a defined level. Thus, it takes longer for patients who are moderately or very ill to be seen and sorted in a CHC than a hospital, as at a CHC they are generally referred onwards to a hospital. Their journey through the EC will then begin again, so that for sicker patients the time spent in ECs in this study is underestimated. Models need to be explored so that patients receive care at point of contact as far as possible. Since CHC-based ECs see as many patients who are as ill as those in hospitals, these should have similar resources to hospitals, so that only those requiring definite admission need to be referred onwards. Point of care testing, bedside ultrasound, appropriate medications and EM skills should all be available at facilities closest to the patients with emergency conditions. Green patients, the lowest acuity, also take longer to be seen and sorted at hospitals versus CHCs, because investigations are available that are then done as an emergency versus outpatient basis. Efficient and timely outpatient appointments would help mitigate this.