Early discharge after nonoperative management of intussusception is both safe and cost-effective.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: We implemented a quality improvement (QI) initiative to safely reduce post-reduction monitoring for pediatric patients with ileocolic intussusception. We hypothesized that there would be decreased length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs, with no change in intussusception recurrence rates.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted of pediatric ileocolic intussusception patients who underwent successful enema reduction at a tertiary-care pediatric hospital from January 2015 through June 2020. In September 2017, an intussusception management protocol was implemented, which allowed discharge within four hours of reduction. Pre- and post-QI outcomes were compared for index encounters and any additional encounter beginning within 24 h of discharge. An economic evaluation was performed with hospital costs inflation-adjusted to 2020 United States Dollars ($). Cost differences between groups were assessed using multivariable regression, adjusting for Medicaid and transfer status, P < 0.05 significant.

RESULTS

Of 90 patients, 37(41%) were pre-QI and 53(59%) were post-QI. Patients were similar by age, sex, race, insurance status, and transfer status. Pre-QI patients had a median LOS of 23.4 h (IQR: 16.1-34.6) versus 9.3 h (IQR 7.4-14.2) for post-QI patients, P < 0.001. Mean total costs per patient in the pre-QI group were $3,231 (95% CI, $2,442-$4,020) versus $1,861 (95% CI, $1,481-$2,240) in the post-QI group. The mean absolute cost difference was $1,370 less per patient in the post-QI group (95% CI, [-$2,251]-[-$490]). Five patients had an additional encounter within 24 h of discharge [pre-QI: 1 (3%) versus post-QI: 4 (8%), p = 0.7] with four having intussusception recurrence [pre-QI: 1 (3%) versus post-QI: 3 (6%), p = 0.6].

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a quality improvement initiative for the treatment of pediatric intussusception reduced hospital length of stay and costs without negatively affecting post-discharge encounters or recurrence rates. Similar protocols can easily be adopted at other institutions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective comparative treatment study.