Utilization of Antipyretics for Nonurgent Fever in a Pediatric Emergency Department

2017 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 722-726
Author(s):  
Courtney E. Nelson ◽  
Svetlana Ostapenko ◽  
Joseph J. Zorc ◽  
Fran Balamuth

This retrospective cohort study aimed to describe antipyretic use among healthy patients in a pediatric emergency department (ED) with nonurgent fever defined as: triage level 4 or 5, chief complaint fever or temperature 38°C to 39°C, and otherwise normal vital signs, and determine if antipyretic administration is associated with increased ED length of stay (LOS). We compared continuous variables using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum testing. We adjusted confounding variables using logistic regression modeling. A total of 22 169 patients were included. Of these, 52% received antipyretic: acetaminophen (38%), ibuprofen (19%), or both antipyretics (5%). ED LOS (median hours) varied by number of antipyretic types given (none, 2.2; ibuprofen, 2.7; acetaminophen, 2.7; and both 3.4, P < .001) and number of doses (0 doses, 2.2, 1 dose, 2.7; 2 doses, 3.4, P < .001). Patients who received antipyretic were more likely to have ED LOS greater than 2 hours (adjusted odds ratio 1.99, 95% CI 1.88-2.11) compared with those with no antipyretic, controlling for age, imaging studies, laboratory studies, antibiotic administration, and disposition.

Author(s):  
Silvia Asenjo ◽  
Aitor López-González ◽  
David Muñoz-Santanach ◽  
Victoria Trenchs ◽  
Carles Luaces ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective: Emergency departments should improve their preparedness for mass casualty incidents (MCIs) through periodic drills. These exercises are conducted while maintaining regular care. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a disaster drill in a pediatric emergency department (PED) on real patients’ waiting times. Methods: On September 10, 2019, a 4-h disaster drill was conducted in the PED of a tertiary pediatric hospital, with minimal staff reinforcement (2 nurses). Cases were real patients that came to the PED during the drill. The patients that visited the PED the day before were the control group. Variables analyzed were: age, sex, destination, triage level, time-to-triage, time-to-physician, length of PED stay, and percentage of patients visited within the optimal time according to triage level. Results: Sixty-eight patients (case group) and 63 patients (control group) were analyzed; both groups were comparable except for the median age. There were no differences in time-to-triage, time-to-physician, and length of PED stay between the 2 groups. The percentage of patients visited within optimal time according to triage level was higher in the case group. Conclusions: Conducting an MCI drill in the PED, with minimal staff reinforcement, was not detrimental to real patients’ waiting times.


2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zorash Montano ◽  
Neda Safvati ◽  
Angela Li ◽  
Ilene Claudius ◽  
Jeffrey I. Gold

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 137 (Supplement 3) ◽  
pp. 276A-276A
Author(s):  
Kaynan Doctor ◽  
Kristen Breslin ◽  
Melissa M. Tavarez ◽  
Deena Berkowitz ◽  
James M. Chamberlain

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document