Objective To determine whether children treated in emergency departments (EDs) with evidence-based standardized protocols (EBSPs) containing evidence-based content and format had lower risk of hospital admission or ED return visit and greater follow-up than children treated in EDs with no standardized protocols in Ontario, Canada.
Design Retrospective population-based cohort study of children with asthma. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate risk of outcomes.
Setting All EDs in Ontario (N = 146) treating childhood asthma from April 2006 to March 2009.
Participants Thirty-one thousand one hundred thirty-eight children (aged 2 to 17 years) with asthma.
Main Exposure Type of standardized protocol (EBSPs, other standardized protocols, or none).
Main Outcome Measures Hospital admission, high-acuity 7-day return visit to the ED, and 7-day outpatient follow-up visit.
Results The final cohort made 46 510 ED visits in 146 EDs. From the index ED visit, 4211 (9.1%) were admitted to the hospital. Of those discharged, 1778 (4.2%) and 7350 (17.4%) had ED return visits and outpatient follow-up visits, respectively. The EBSPs were not associated with hospitalizations, return visits, or follow-up (adjusted odds ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.91-1.49]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.86-1.41]; and adjusted odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.87-1.35], respectively).
Conclusions The EBSPs were not associated with improvements in rates of hospital admissions, return visits to the ED, or follow-up. Our findings suggest the need to address gaps linking improved processes of asthma care with outcomes.
Despite effective primary care strategies and outpatient quality improvement interventions to reduce acute health care services use for children with asthma,1-3 the emergency department (ED) and hospital continue to be important sources of asthma care for children. In 2004, an estimated 754 000 visits for asthma were made by children to EDs in the United States, with 204 700 hospital admissions in the prior year.4 In Canada, asthma is the most common cause for hospitalizations in children aged 1 to 14 years.5
Evidence-based interventions outlining the management of acute asthma exist within national and international guidelines.6-10 However, several studies have highlighted ongoing gaps in the quality of care provided. A sample of EDs in Ontario, Canada, demonstrated that only 35.2% and 31.7% of children had documented systemic steroid use in the ED and on discharge, respectively. These are evidence-based strategies shown to decrease hospitalizations and return visits to the ED.11-13 A study examining 63 EDs in the United States observed a 46% reduced risk of hospitalization among adolescents and adults treated with processes of care recommended with the best evidence (level A) by the National Institutes of Health guidelines compared with those managed differently.14
To address gaps in care, EDs have explored the use of standardized protocols (SPs). These tools translate evidence and guideline recommendations into practice and exist in different formats including clinical practice guidelines, clinical pathways, preprinted orders, and medical directives (sometimes referred to as standing orders). There is evidence supporting formats of SPs that are part of patient medical records (including preprinted orders and clinical pathways). In a systematic review, key features of clinical decision support tools such as SPs that were associated with improved processes and outcomes included integration into the workflow, providing a recommendation rather than indicating an assessment, and computer-based systems.15
Evidence of the real-world effectiveness of SPs for childhood asthma is limited. Various types of SPs for childhood asthma in the ED have been tested mainly in single-center, before-and-after trials producing inconsistent results in processes and outcomes of care, including hospital admissions and ED return visits.16-24 Reducing the latter 2 outcomes are widely affirmed health care priorities in Canada and the United States, where rates are reported as quality indicators for hospital and health system performance.25-28 Improving follow-up visits is another important outcome, since they may prevent subsequent exacerbations and acute care use by ensuring continuity of care and chronic disease management.6,29,30
The objective of this study was to determine whether SPs containing evidence-based content and format (EBSPs) were associated with improved short-term childhood asthma outcomes. We hypothesized that EBSPs would reduce hospitalizations at the index ED visit and ED return visits within 7 days, as well as increase 7-day outpatient follow-up.
This study was a retrospective population-based cohort of children 2 to 17 years old with asthma treated in an ED in Ontario between April 14, 2006, and February 28, 2009. We used 4 linked health administrative data sets available at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and survey data to determine the association of SPs with short-term asthma outcomes. Research ethics board approval was granted from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, the Hospital for Sick Children, and the University of Toronto.
We obtained available SPs by conducting a survey (October 2009-February 2010) of all Ontario EDs who manage children with asthma. We used population-based data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information National Ambulatory Care Reporting System and Discharge Abstract Database, as well as the Ontario Health Insurance Plan claims database, to identify ED visits, hospitalizations, and outpatient follow-up visits, respectively. We used the Ontario Asthma Surveillance Information System, a validated population-based registry using administrative data, to identify children with previously diagnosed asthma.31 We used survey data from previous work21 to ascertain the frontline ED physician staffing model.
Our cohort consisted of all children 2 to 17 years old with previously diagnosed asthma (from the Ontario Asthma Surveillance Information System) with an unplanned visit to an Ontario ED for asthma (International Statistical Classification of Diseases,10th Revision, Canada code J45) in the fiscal years starting April 2006 and ending March 2009. We ended enrollment February 28, 2009, so that we could assess 7-day outcomes to March 7, 2009. Records for hospitalizations are found in the fiscal year of the date of discharge so we allowed a 3-week period to include all admissions that would have initiated in the first week of March 2009. We included only children with known asthma so that at presentation to the ED the diagnosis of an acute exacerbation should be more evident and an SP initiated if available. The SPs also often require the patient has a prior diagnosis before therapy initiation, especially medical directives allowing nurses or respiratory therapists to give medications. We excluded those with a visit in the 14 days prior to ensure they were not return visits for unresolved exacerbations. In Ontario, most children admitted to the hospital for asthma go through the ED, so this exclusion also captured those with a hospitalization in the prior 14 days. Children seen in EDs with low annual volumes for pediatric asthma (≤10th percentile) were excluded. The latter EDs treated fewer than 32 children with asthma per year, which we considered to be an insufficient number of patients to contribute adequate data on their overall management of acute asthma.
For all Ontario EDs managing children with asthma during the study time frame (April 2006-March 2009), one of us (P.L.) contacted ED administrators and directors previously identified as best respondents for Ontario Hospital Report25 surveys to determine the use of pediatric asthma SPs and obtain a copy. Two of us (P.L. and A.G.) categorized SPs into 4 formats, preprinted orders, clinical practice guidelines, medical directives, and clinical pathways, using the following definitions.32,33 Preprinted orders have preset management suggestions used as orders requiring a physician signature. Clinical practice guidelines are “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances.”34(p38) Medical directives contain standing orders that nurses or respiratory therapists can initiate autonomously. Clinical pathways are structured multidisciplinary plans of care with at least 3 other features (translated guidelines or evidence, detailed steps of treatment, provided time frames and criteria-based progression, and/or standardized care).33 Based on the literature for clinical decision-support tools and SP implementation, we defined formats that were embedded into workflow as evidence based (ie, preprinted orders and clinical pathways).15
Using evidence from a literature review and guidelines from the Global Initiative for Asthma2,3 and US National Asthma Education and Prevention Program,4 we examined whether SPs had the evidence-based content related to improving hospital admissions, ED return visits, and outpatient follow-up (designated as “required content” in Table 1). The SPs were categorized as having evidence-based content if they contained practices supported by the best level of evidence (A, if available).
Table 1. Evidence-Based Content in Standardized Protocols to Improve Hospitalizations, ED Return Visits, and Follow-up
The EDs were categorized as having EBSPs (containing evidence-based format and content), other SPs (lacking evidence-based format and/or content), or none. We took into account the date when EDs implemented the SPs so that patients were assigned to the SP type that existed at the date of their ED visit.
The primary outcome was hospital admission at the index ED visit. Secondary outcomes included ED return visits and outpatient follow-up within 7 days among nonadmitted children. For return visits, we included unplanned visits to any Ontario ED for asthma and any diagnoses related to the respiratory system. Only high-acuity visits identified with the validated Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale36-40 triage score of 3, 2, or 1 (urgent, emergent, and resuscitation, respectively) were included. The time frame of 7 days was chosen to accurately capture most relapses without falsely including new exacerbations, although morbidity from an acute event may continue for 7 to 15 days after discharge.41
Outpatient follow-up visit within 7 days was defined either as an office-based physician visit or a planned nonurgent return visit to the ED. Although guidelines recommend follow-up within 1 to 4 weeks after an acute exacerbation for asthma,6-8 some authors advocate for follow-up 1 week or sooner.42 We chose the time frame of 1 week to include follow-up for the current exacerbation only.
We adjusted for patient-level covariates that could affect asthma outcomes, including sex, age, and neighborhood income quintile. The latter approximated the socioeconomic status of each child by linking the postal code with the mean neighborhood income within the dissemination area (average population, 650) from the 2006 Canadian Census. To adjust for acute severity, we used the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale triage score of the index ED visit. To adjust for chronic severity, we used the history of asthma ED visits and hospitalizations in the prior 2 years. As factors that may reflect access or propensity to use ED care, we examined the history of ED visits for any diagnoses within the past 2 years and the distance from the child's home to the hospital. For the analyses involving ED return visits, we also considered 2 additional covariates: (1) outpatient follow-up visits and (2) the interaction term involving outpatient follow-up and SP type, since follow-up could act as both a confounder and effect modifier on the main exposure (SP type).
We examined hospital-level covariates including rurality, hospital type, and the annual pediatric asthma patient volume. A rural ED was defined as being outside the commuting zone of larger urban centers with a population of 10 000 or more using the Statistics Canada definition.43 The 4 hospital types were defined using the Ontario Joint Policy and Planning Committee definitions of teaching and community hospitals and survey data on frontline ED physician staffing.21 The Joint Policy and Planning Committee–defined teaching hospitals were divided as “pediatric” if EDs were staffed by pediatric ED-trained physicians or pediatricians vs “teaching” hospitals. Community hospitals were divided by whether pediatricians were available for consultation.
Categorical variables were described as frequencies and proportions. For the distance from home to the hospital, the distribution was skewed and log-transformed. To model the relationship between SPs and outcomes adjusting for significant patient- and hospital-level covariates, we used logistic regression with generalized estimating equations that accounted for clustering of patient outcomes by ED.44 Statistical significance was defined as a 2-tailed P < .05.
A total of 165 EDs managed children with asthma in Ontario, of which 17 were excluded because of low volumes and 2 could not be contacted. A total of 43 (29.5%) of the 146 EDs had SPs. Table 2 shows the SPs grouped for each outcome into EBSPs, other SPs, and no SP.
Table 2. ED Outcomes for Children With Asthma by Type of SP Use in the ED
BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN AND EDs
Table 3 describes the characteristics of the children and the EDs they visited by SP type. The final cohort consisted of 46 510 visits from 31 138 unique children managed in 146 EDs. Younger children presenting with a higher acuity score were more likely to be treated in EDs with EBSPs.
Table 3. Characteristics of Study Population Stratified by Type of SPs for Each Outcomea
ASSOCIATION OF SPs WITH HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS, ED RETURN VISITS, AND OUTPATIENT FOLLOW-UP VISITS
Of the 46 510 index ED visits, there were 4211 hospital admissions (9.1%). Of those not admitted (n = 42 299), 1778 (4.2%) had a high-acuity ED return visit and 7350 (17.4%) had a follow-up visit within 7 days. No significant associations between SPs and outcomes were observed in the multivariable analysis (Table 4).
Table 4. Unadjusted and Adjusted ORs of Hospital Admissions, ED Return Visits, and Outpatient Visits According to Types of SPs
In this population-based study, we examined the use of SPs as a strategy to improve the quality of acute asthma care. We linked data from a survey with a high response rate to key outcomes allowing us to examine the real-world effectiveness of SPs for childhood asthma in Ontario EDs. As currently implemented, we observed no impact of EBSPs on hospital admissions, ED return visits, and follow-up. Although we observed low follow-up (17.4%), these visits were associated with reduced odds of ED recidivism within the first week, supporting the recommendations of published guidelines for post-ED care.6-8
The failure to demonstrate a significant effect of SPs may be explained in part by the quality and implementation of EBSPs. There were no computerized SPs, for which the literature is increasingly demonstrating support.15,45,46 A small single-center preintervention and postintervention study using a computerized decision support tool for asthma in an adult ED showed improved documentation of clinical parameters and discharge plans.45 Cost and time efficiency were not reported, but this study lends promise to the potential of ED-based computerized systems. A cluster randomized trial of clinical decision support embedded in electronic health records for primary care physicians also showed significantly improved adherence to national asthma guidelines.46
Several nonrandomized trials for asthma SPs in the ED have demonstrated improved processes of care (such as prescribing steroids and discharge planning)17-20,22-24 but few have shown improved asthma outcomes.19,24 For the current study, the quality of care may have improved from adherence to evidence-based processes of care but these were not reflected in our measured outcomes. For example, although SPs may have improved physician reminders for follow-up care, other barriers must be overcome to achieve these visits, including parental (beliefs and barriers)47,48 and health systems (access to providers) factors.49,50 The missing link between processes and outcomes is further supported by a recent study examining pediatric quality indicators of asthma care in 14 US-based EDs, where receipt of 1 or all evidence-based treatments did not predict successful ED discharges (ie, not resulting in return visits or significant ongoing symptoms).51
Our baseline rates for hospitalizations and ED return visits, which were similar to those previously reported in Ontario,21 may have been too low to observe a further decrease resulting from a single intervention in the ED. Pediatric asthma is a chronic disease with complex interdisciplinary pre-ED and post-ED management factors affecting the outcomes of each acute episode, such as the availability of a primary care medical home.1,2 In previous single-center studies demonstrating significant effects using SPs, the baseline hospitalization rates were as high as 27.5% to 32.0% and ED return visit rates ranged from 8.0% to 8.4%,16,19 whereas in the current study, they were 9.1% and 4.2%, respectively.
Our study was limited by the observational design. Associations but not causality could be inferred. Two methods to adjust for confounding in observational studies include regression and propensity scores. We used regression because in a systematic review of studies using both methods, either produced similar results.52 The quality of propensity scores depend on the data available and scores developed using administrative data may not always balance patient characteristics found within clinical data.53 We did not have the data to adjust for patient factors including the degree of self-management skills and prior asthma education,54 ethnicity,55 allergen/environmental exposures, and controller medication use.6 In the absence of the latter, we used history of hospitalizations and ED visits to adjust for asthma severity similar to previous studies.21,56,57
Although we successfully retrieved and examined the majority of SPs for childhood asthma in Ontario, we were unable to assess the extent to which they were implemented. The decision to comply with protocols, as well as the ultimate decision to hospitalize a child, remained in the hands of individual ED physicians. There is some evidence that physicians' management of childhood asthma reflects recommendations for SPs produced within their institutions. One study across 11 large pediatric EDs in New Zealand and Australia found that there was generally good agreement with the ED-specific clinical practice guidelines and physician practice, although the divergence was observed with disease severity (where the evidence seemed less clear).58
To our best knowledge, this is the first study examining in detail all SPs available for childhood asthma in a population-based sample across a wide range of ED settings. Although the literature suggests that evidence-based, rigorously implemented SPs in the trial setting may improve processes of care and to a lesser extent, outcomes, as currently implemented in Ontario, we did not observe an impact of EBSPs on short-term asthma outcomes. Our study does not have sufficient evidence to dispute the potential importance of SPs in quality improvement activities. With increasing policies and programs mandated to enhance quality of care, our findings point to the need for mechanisms to update the content and ensure widespread dissemination of SPs, but likely, effective implementation will continue to be an important research and policy need. Future studies should also identify and address the gaps linking improved processes of acute asthma care with outcomes.
Correspondence: Astrid Guttmann, MDCM, MSc, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G1 06, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada (astrid.guttmann@ices.on.ca).
Accepted for Publication: April 12, 2012.
Published Online: July 9, 2012. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1195
Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Li, To, Parkin, Anderson, and Guttmann. Acquisition of data: Li and Guttmann. Analysis and interpretation of data: Li, Parkin, and Guttmann. Drafting of the manuscript: Li and Guttmann. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Li, To, Parkin, Anderson, and Guttmann. Statistical analysis: Li, To, and Guttmann. Obtained funding: Li and Guttmann. Administrative, technical, and material support: Li and Guttmann. Study supervision: To, Anderson, and Guttmann.
Financial Disclosure: None reported.
Funding/Support: Dr Li received an Academic Pediatric Association/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Young Investigator Award for this study, Dr To is supported by the Dales Award, University of Toronto, Dr Guttmann is a recipient of a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator Award and a Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Career Enhancement Program Award, and the Pediatric Outcomes Research Team is supported by a grant from the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation. This study was performed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.
Disclaimer: The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this article are those of the authors and are independent from all funding sources. No endorsement by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences or the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is intended or should be inferred.
Additional Contributions: We thank Kelvin Lam, MSc, data analyst at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, for extracting the preliminary health services data.
1.Homer CJ, Klatka K, Romm D,
et al. A review of the evidence for the medical home for children with special health care needs.
Pediatrics. 2008;122(4):e922-e93718829788
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 2.Diedhiou A, Probst JC, Hardin JW, Martin AB, Xirasagar S. Relationship between presence of a reported medical home and emergency department use among children with asthma.
Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67(4):450-47520442339
PubMedGoogle Scholar 3.Bravata DM, Gienger AL, Holty JE,
et al. Quality improvement strategies for children with asthma: a systematic review.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(6):572-58119487615
PubMedGoogle Scholar 4.Moorman JE, Rudd RA, Johnson CA,
et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National surveillance for asthma: United States, 1980-2004.
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2007;56(8):1-5417947969
PubMedGoogle Scholar 5.To T, Guttmann A, Dick P. Inpatient and Day Surgery Use by Children in Ontario: ICES Research Atlas. Toronto, ON, Canada: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2001
6.National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (National Heart Lung and Blood Institute). NAEPP Expert Panel Report 3: guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/. Published 2007. Accessed May 18, 2010 7.Global Initiative for Asthma. GINA report, global strategy for asthma management and prevention.
http://www.ginasthma.org. Published 2009. Accessed May 18, 2010 9.Lougheed MD, Lemière C, Dell SD,
et al; Canadian Thoracic Society Asthma Committee. Canadian Thoracic Society Asthma Management Continuum: 2010 Consensus Summary for children six years of age and over, and adults.
Can Respir J. 2010;17(1):15-2420186367
PubMedGoogle Scholar 10.British Thoracic Society Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. British guideline on the management of asthma.
Thorax. 2008;63:(suppl 4)
iv1-iv12118463203
PubMedGoogle Scholar 11.Lougheed MD, Garvey N, Chapman KR,
et al. Variations and gaps in management of acute asthma in Ontario emergency departments.
Chest. 2009;135(3):724-73619017869
PubMedGoogle Scholar 12.Rowe BH, Spooner C, Ducharme FM, Bretzlaff JA, Bota GW. Early emergency department treatment of acute asthma with systemic corticosteroids.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(1):CD00217811279756
PubMedGoogle Scholar 13.Rowe BH, Spooner CH, Ducharme FM, Bretzlaff JA, Bota GW. Corticosteroids for preventing relapse following acute exacerbations of asthma.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(3):CD00019517636617
PubMedGoogle Scholar 14.Tsai CL, Sullivan AF, Gordon JA,
et al. Quality of care for acute asthma in 63 US emergency departments.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;123(2):354-36119070357
PubMedGoogle Scholar 15.Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success.
BMJ. 2005;330(7494):76515767266
PubMedGoogle Scholar 16.Browne GJ, Giles H, McCaskill ME, Fasher BJ, Lam LT. The benefits of using clinical pathways for managing acute paediatric illness in an emergency department.
J Qual Clin Pract. 2001;21(3):50-5511892822
PubMedGoogle Scholar 17.Cunningham S, Logan C, Lockerbie L, Dunn MJ, McMurray A, Prescott RJ. Effect of an integrated care pathway on acute asthma/wheeze in children attending hospital: cluster randomized trial.
J Pediatr. 2008;152(3):315-32018280833
PubMedGoogle Scholar 18.Massie J, Efron D, Cerritelli B,
et al; ICAAM Study Group. Implementation of evidence based guidelines for paediatric asthma management in a teaching hospital.
Arch Dis Child. 2004;89(7):660-66415210500
PubMedGoogle Scholar 19.Norton SP, Pusic MV, Taha F, Heathcote S, Carleton BC. Effect of a clinical pathway on the hospitalisation rates of children with asthma: a prospective study.
Arch Dis Child. 2007;92(1):60-6616905562
PubMedGoogle Scholar 20.Doherty S, Jones P, Stevens H, Davis L, Ryan N, Treeve V. ‘Evidence-based implementation’ of paediatric asthma guidelines in a rural emergency department.
J Paediatr Child Health. 2007;43(9):611-61617688645
PubMedGoogle Scholar 21.Guttmann A, Zagorski B, Austin PC,
et al. Effectiveness of emergency department asthma management strategies on return visits in children: a population-based study.
Pediatrics. 2007;120(6):e1402-e141018055658
PubMedGoogle Scholar 22.Mackey D, Myles M, Spooner CH,
et al. Changing the process of care and practice in acute asthma in the emergency department: experience with an asthma care map in a regional hospital.
CJEM. 2007;9(5):353-36517935651
PubMedGoogle Scholar 23.To T, Wang C, Dell SD,
et al; PAMG Team. Can an evidence-based guideline reminder card improve asthma management in the emergency department?
Respir Med. 2010;104(9):1263-127020434896
PubMedGoogle Scholar 24.Gildenhuys J, Lee M, Isbister GK. Does implementation of a paediatric asthma clinical practice guideline worksheet change clinical practice?
Int J Emerg Med. 2009;2(1):33-3919390915
PubMedGoogle Scholar 26.US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010 Objectives. Rockville, MD: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 2001
27.US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020 Objectives. Rockville, MD: Office of Disease Prevention and Promotion; 2011
28.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ Quality Indicators: guide to prevention quality indicators.
www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov. Accessed April 15, 2011 29.Smith SR, Wakefield DB, Cloutier MM. Relationship between pediatric primary provider visits and acute asthma ED visits.
Pediatr Pulmonol. 2007;42(11):1041-104717902163
PubMedGoogle Scholar 30.Rachelefsky G. Inhaled corticosteroids and asthma control in children: assessing impairment and risk.
Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):353-36619117903
PubMedGoogle Scholar 31.To T, Dell S, Dick PT,
et al. Case verification of children with asthma in Ontario.
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2006;17(1):69-7616426258
PubMedGoogle Scholar 32.Cole L, Lasker-Hertz S, Grady G, Clark M, Houston S. Structured care methodologies: tools for standardization and outcomes measurement.
Nurs Case Manag. 1996;1(4):160-1729205309
PubMedGoogle Scholar 33.Rotter T, Kinsman L, James E,
et al. Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;3(3):CD00663220238347
PubMedGoogle Scholar 34.Field MJ, Lohr KN. Institute of Medicine “Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program”. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990
35.Camargo CA Jr, Spooner CH, Rowe BH. Continuous versus intermittent beta-agonists in the treatment of acute asthma.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD00111514583926
PubMedGoogle Scholar 36.Gouin S, Gravel J, Amre DK, Bergeron S. Evaluation of the Paediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in a pediatric ED.
Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23(3):243-24715915392
PubMedGoogle Scholar 37.Gravel J, Gouin S, Manzano S, Arsenault M, Amre D. Interrater agreement between nurses for the Pediatric Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale in a tertiary care center.
Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(12):1262-126718945238
PubMedGoogle Scholar 38.Gravel J, Manzano S, Arsenault M. Validity of the Canadian Paediatric Triage and Acuity Scale in a tertiary care hospital.
CJEM. 2009;11(1):23-2819166636
PubMedGoogle Scholar 39.Ma W, Jarvis A, Goldman R. PEDIATRIC Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale as a predictor for outcome and resource utilization [2007 CAEP/ACMU scientific abstract].
CJEM. 2007;9(3):183-226
Google Scholar 40.Gravel J, Gouin S, Goldman R,
et al. A prospective multi-centre evaluation of the reliability of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale for Children. Paper presented at: Pediatric Academic Societies; April 30, 2011; Denver, CO
41.Benito-Fernández J. Short-term clinical outcomes of acute treatment of childhood asthma.
Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;5(3):241-24615864082
PubMedGoogle Scholar 42.Schatz M, Rachelefsky G, Krishnan JA. Follow-up after acute asthma episodes: what improves future outcomes?
J Emerg Med. 2009;37(2):(suppl)
S42-S5019683664
PubMedGoogle Scholar 43.du Plessis V, Beshiri R, Bollman RD, Clemenson H. Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin: Definitions of Rural. Vol 3. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada; 2001
44.Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes.
Biometrics. 1986;42(1):121-1303719049
PubMedGoogle Scholar 45.Kwok R, Dinh M, Dinh D, Chu M. Improving adherence to asthma clinical guidelines and discharge documentation from emergency departments: implementation of a dynamic and integrated electronic decision support system.
Emerg Med Australas. 2009;21(1):31-3719254310
PubMedGoogle Scholar 46.Bell LM, Grundmeier R, Localio R,
et al. Electronic health record-based decision support to improve asthma care: a cluster-randomized trial.
Pediatrics. 2010;125(4):e770-e77720231191
PubMedGoogle Scholar 47.Zorc JJ, Chew A, Allen JL, Shaw K. Beliefs and barriers to follow-up after an emergency department asthma visit: a randomized trial.
Pediatrics. 2009;124(4):1135-114219786448
PubMedGoogle Scholar 48.Smith SR, Highstein GR, Jaffe DM, Fisher EB Jr, Strunk RC. Parental impressions of the benefits (pros) and barriers (cons) of follow-up care after an acute emergency department visit for children with asthma.
Pediatrics. 2002;110(2, pt 1):323-33012165585
PubMedGoogle Scholar 49.Crain EF, Kercsmar C, Weiss KB, Mitchell H, Lynn H. Reported difficulties in access to quality care for children with asthma in the inner city.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152(4):333-3399559707
PubMedGoogle Scholar 50.Guttmann A, Shipman SA, Lam K, Goodman DC, Stukel TA. Primary care physician supply and children's health care use, access, and outcomes: findings from Canada.
Pediatrics. 2010;125(6):1119-112620498170
PubMedGoogle Scholar 51.Sills MR, Ginde AA, Clark S, Camargo CA Jr. Multicenter analysis of quality indicators for children treated in the emergency department for asthma.
Pediatrics. 2012;129(2):e325-e33222250025
PubMedGoogle Scholar 52.Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(6):550-55915878468
PubMedGoogle Scholar 53.Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Stukel TA, Anderson GM, Tu JV. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data.
Stat Med. 2005;24(10):1563-157815706581
PubMedGoogle Scholar 54.Coffman JM, Cabana MD, Halpin HA, Yelin EH. Effects of asthma education on children's use of acute care services: a meta-analysis.
Pediatrics. 2008;121(3):575-58618310208
PubMedGoogle Scholar 55.Forno E, Celedon JC. Asthma and ethnic minorities: socioeconomic status and beyond.
Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;9(2):154-16019326508
PubMedGoogle Scholar 56.Emerman CL, Cydulka RK, Crain EF, Rowe BH, Radeos MS, Camargo CA Jr.MARC Investigators. Prospective multicenter study of relapse after treatment for acute asthma among children presenting to the emergency department.
J Pediatr. 2001;138(3):318-32411241036
PubMedGoogle Scholar 57.Stevens MW, Gorelick MH. Short-term outcomes after acute treatment of pediatric asthma.
Pediatrics. 2001;107(6):1357-136211389257
PubMedGoogle Scholar 58.Babl FE, Sheriff N, Borland M,
et al. Paediatric acute asthma management in Australia and New Zealand: practice patterns in the context of clinical practice guidelines.
Arch Dis Child. 2008;93(4):307-31218356383
PubMedGoogle Scholar