Journal of pediatric surgery · 2020
Improving the diagnostic accuracy of appendicitis using a multidisciplinary pathway.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dhatt Saroop, Sabhaney Vikram, Bray Heather, Skarsgard Erik D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Improvement opportunities exist in the accuracy and timeliness of the diagnosis of childhood appendicitis. The purpose of our study was to conduct a post-implementation audit of a diagnostic pathway for children with suspected appendicitis presenting to our pediatric emergency department.
METHODS: We adopted a diagnostic pathway that utilized a validated risk of appendicitis stratification tool (Alvarado Score) with protocolized use of abdominal ultrasound for moderate risk patients. We conducted a 10% convenience sample audit of pathway patients treated over the subsequent 18-month period. Outcome measures included false negative and positive rates, sensitivity, specificity, and overall pathway accuracy.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four pathway patients, of which 22 (16.4%) had appendicitis confirmed pathologically, were evaluated. The risk group distribution of patients was: low risk (29%), moderate risk (60%), and high risk (11%). The negative appendectomy rate was 4.4% (reduced from 14% pre-pathway), and the false negative (missed appendicitis) rate was 3.0%. No patients received CT scans. Pathway sensitivity was 81.8%% (95% CI 59.7% to 94.8%), specificity-92.9%% (95% CI 86.4%-96.9%), and overall accuracy-91.0% (95% CI 84.9%-95.3%).
CONCLUSION: Implementation of a diagnostic pathway achieved a high level of accuracy and reduced our institutional negative appendectomy rate by 67%. The audit identified additional pathway improvement opportunities.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
METHODS: We adopted a diagnostic pathway that utilized a validated risk of appendicitis stratification tool (Alvarado Score) with protocolized use of abdominal ultrasound for moderate risk patients. We conducted a 10% convenience sample audit of pathway patients treated over the subsequent 18-month period. Outcome measures included false negative and positive rates, sensitivity, specificity, and overall pathway accuracy.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four pathway patients, of which 22 (16.4%) had appendicitis confirmed pathologically, were evaluated. The risk group distribution of patients was: low risk (29%), moderate risk (60%), and high risk (11%). The negative appendectomy rate was 4.4% (reduced from 14% pre-pathway), and the false negative (missed appendicitis) rate was 3.0%. No patients received CT scans. Pathway sensitivity was 81.8%% (95% CI 59.7% to 94.8%), specificity-92.9%% (95% CI 86.4%-96.9%), and overall accuracy-91.0% (95% CI 84.9%-95.3%).
CONCLUSION: Implementation of a diagnostic pathway achieved a high level of accuracy and reduced our institutional negative appendectomy rate by 67%. The audit identified additional pathway improvement opportunities.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.