Eric J Slora

American Academy of Pediatrics , Elk Grove Village, Illinois, United States

Are you Eric J Slora?

Claim your profile

Publications (29)83.97 Total impact

  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Data from racially and ethnically diverse US boys are needed to determine ages of onset of secondary sexual characteristics and examine secular trends. Current international studies suggest earlier puberty in boys than previous studies, following recent trend in girls.METHODS:Two hundred and twelve practitioners collected Tanner stage and testicular volume data on 4131 boys seen for well-child care in 144 pediatric offices across the United States. Data were analyzed for prevalence and mean ages of onset of sexual maturity markers.RESULTS:Mean ages for onset of Tanner 2 genital development for non-Hispanic white, African American, and Hispanic boys were 10.14, 9.14, and 10.04 years and for stage 2 pubic hair, 11.47, 10.25, and 11.43 years respectively. Mean years for achieving testicular volumes of ≥3 mL were 9.95 for white, 9.71 for African American, and 9.63 for Hispanic boys; and for ≥4 mL were 11.46, 11.75, and 11.29 respectively. African American boys showed earlier (P < .0001) mean ages for stage 2 to 4 genital development and stage 2 to 4 pubic hair than white and Hispanic boys. No statistical differences were observed between white and Hispanic boys.CONCLUSIONS:Observed mean ages of beginning genital and pubic hair growth and early testicular volumes were 6 months to 2 years earlier than in past studies, depending on the characteristic and race/ethnicity. The causes and public health implications of this apparent shift in US boys to a lower age of onset for the development of secondary sexual characteristics in US boys needs further exploration.
    PEDIATRICS 10/2012; · 4.47 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study will test the efficacy of motivational interviewing (MI) conducted by primary care providers and dieticians among children ages 2-8 years old with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 85th and ≤ 97th percentile. Forty-two practices from the American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network were assigned to one of three groups. Group 1 (usual care) measures BMI percentile at baseline, and at 1- and 2-year follow-ups and receives standard health education materials. Group 2 providers deliver three proactive MI counselling sessions with a parent of the index child in Year 1 and one additional 'booster' visit in Year 2. Group 3 adds six MI counselling sessions from a trained dietician. The primary outcome is the child's BMI percentile at 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes include parent report of the child's screen time, physical activity, intake of fruits and vegetables, and sugar-sweetened beverages. We enrolled 633 eligible children whose mean BMI percentile was 92.0 and mean age of 5.1. The cohort was 57% female. Almost 70% of parents reported a household income of ≥ $40,000 per year, and 39% had at least a college education. The cohort was 63% white, 23% Hispanic, 7% black and 7% Asian. Parent self-reported confidence that their child will achieve a healthy weight was on average an 8 (out of 10). To date, several aspects of the study can inform similar efforts including our ability to use volunteer clinicians to recruit participants and their willingness to dedicate their time, without pay, to receive training in MI.
    Pediatric Obesity 02/2012; 7(1):3-15. · 2.28 Impact Factor
  • Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care 11/2011; 41(10):286-92. · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The recently renewed Best Pharmaceuticals for Children and Pediatric Research Equity Acts (BPCA/PREA) have continued industry incentives and opportunities for pediatric drug trials (PDTs). However, there is no current assessment of the capacity to perform PDTs. The aim of this study was to deepen understanding of the capacity for US PDTs by assessing PDT infrastructure, present barriers to PDTs, and potential approaches and solutions to identified issues. Pediatric clinical research experts participated in semi-structured interviews on current US pediatric research capacity (February-July 2007). An initial informant list was developed using purposive sampling, and supplemented and refined to generate a group of respondents to explore emerging themes. Each phone interview included a physician researcher and two health researchers who took notes and recorded the calls. Health researchers produced detailed summaries, which were verified by the physician researcher and informants. We then undertook qualitative analysis of the summaries, employing multiple coding, with the two health researchers and the physician researcher independently coding each summary for themes and subthemes. Coding variations were resolved by physician researcher/health researcher discussion and consensus achieved on themes and subthemes. The 33 informants' primary or secondary roles included academia (n = 21), federal official (5), industry medical officer (8), pediatric research network leader (10), pediatric specialist leader (8), pediatric clinical pharmacologist (5), and practitioner/research site director (9). While most experts noted an increase in PDTs since the initial passage of BPCA/PREA, a dominant theme of insufficient US PDT capacity emerged. Subthemes included (i) lack of systems for finding, incentivizing, and/or maintaining trial sites; (ii) complexity/demands of conducting PDTs in clinical settings; (iii) inadequate numbers of qualified pediatric pharmacologists and clinician investigators trained in FDA Good Clinical Practice; and (iv) poor PDT protocol design resulting in operational and enrollment difficulties in the pediatric population. Suggested potential solutions for insufficient PDT capacity included (i) consensus-building among stakeholders to create PDT systems; (ii) initiatives to train more pediatric pharmacologists and educate clinicians in Good Clinical Practice; (iii) advocacy for PDT protocols designed by individuals sensitive to pediatric issues; and (iv) physician and public education on the importance of PDTs. Conclusions: Insufficient US PDT capacity may hinder the development of new drugs for children and limit studies on the safety and efficacy of drugs presently used to treat pediatric conditions. Further public policy initiatives may be needed to achieve the full promise of BPCA/PREA.
    Paediatric Drugs 04/2011; 13(2):119-24. · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined the validity of primary health care providers' (PHCPs) assessment of suspicion that an injury was caused by child abuse and their decision to report suspected child abuse to child protective services (CPS). By using a subsample of injuries drawn from the 15,003 childhood injuries evaluated in the Child Abuse Recognition and Evaluation Study, PHCPs completed telephone interviews concerning a stratified sample (no suspicion of abuse; suspicious but not reported; and suspicious of abuse and reported) of 111 injury visits. Two techniques were used to validate the PHCPs' initial decision: expert review and provider retrospective self-assessment. Five child abuse experts reviewed clinical vignettes created by using data prospectively collected by PHCPs about the patient encounter. The PHCPs' opinions 6 weeks and 6 months after the injury-related visits were elicited and analyzed. PHCPs and experts agreed about the suspicion of abuse in 81% of the cases of physical injury. PHCPs did not report 21% of injuries that experts would have reported. Compared with expert reviewers, PHCPs had a 68% sensitivity and 96% specificity in reporting child abuse. A PHCP's decision to report suspected child abuse to CPS did not reduce the frequency of primary care follow-up in the 6 months after the index visit. PCHPs received information from their state CPS in 70% of the reported cases. Child abuse experts and PHCPs are in general agreement concerning the assessment of suspected child physical abuse, although experts would have reported suspected abuse to CPS more frequently than the PHCPs. Future training should focus on clear guidance for better recognition of injuries that are suspicious for child abuse and state laws that mandate reporting.
    Academic pediatrics 01/2011; 11(6):460-6.
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goals were (1) to describe and to characterize pediatric clinical research networks (PCRNs) in the United States and Canada, (2) to identify PCRN strengths and weaknesses, (3) to evaluate the potential for collaboration among PCRNs, and (4) to assess untapped potential interest in PCRN participation. Data collection included (1) initial identification of PCRNs through an Internet search and word of mouth, (2) follow-up surveys of PCRN leaders, (3) telephone interviews with 21 PCRN leaders, and (4) a survey of 43 American Academy of Pediatrics specialty leaders regarding untapped interest in network research. Seventy exclusively pediatric networks were identified. Of those, specialty care networks constituted the largest proportion (50%), followed by primary care (28.6%) and disease-specific (21.4%) networks. A network profile survey (response rate: 74.3%) revealed that ∼90% held infrastructure funding. Nearly 75% of respondents viewed cross-network collaborations positively. In-depth telephone interviews corroborated the survey data, with cross-network collaboration mentioned consistently as a theme. American Academy of Pediatrics specialty leaders indicated that up to 30% of current nonparticipants might be interested in research involvement. Pediatric networks exist across the care continuum. Significant numbers of uninvolved practitioners may be interested in joining PCRNs. A strong majority of network leaders cited potential benefits from network collaboration.
    PEDIATRICS 10/2010; 126(4):740-5. · 4.47 Impact Factor
  • Eric J Slora, Richard C Wasserman
    Pediatric Annals 06/2010; 39(6):352-61. · 0.30 Impact Factor
  • Jeffrey M Davis. 01/2010;
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe the process and outcomes of local institutional review board (IRB) review for 2 Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) studies. Pediatric Research in Office Settings conducted 2 national studies concerning sensitive topics: (1) Child Abuse Recognition Experience Study (CARES), an observational study of physician decision making, and (2) Safety Check, a violence prevention intervention trial. Institutional review board approval was secured by investigators' sites, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and practices with local IRBs. Practices were queried about IRB rules at PROS enrollment and study recruitment. Pediatric Research in Office Settings practices in 29 states. Eighty-eight PROS practices (75 IRBs). Main Exposure Local IRB presence. Local IRB presence, level of PROS assistance, IRB process, study participation, data collection completion, and minority enrollment. Practices requiring additional local IRB approval agreed to participate less than those that did not (CARES: 33% vs 52%; Safety Check: 41% vs 56%). Of the 88 practices requiring local IRB approval, 55 received approval, with nearly 50% needing active PROS help, many requiring consent changes (eg, contact name additions, local IRB approval stamps), and 87% beginning data collection. Median days to obtain approval were 81 (CARES) and 109 (Safety Check). Practices requiring local IRB approval were less likely to complete data collection but more likely to enroll minority patients. Local IRB review was associated with lower participation rates, substantial effort navigating the process (with approval universally granted without substantive changes), and data collection delays. When considering future reforms, the national human subject protections system should consider the potential redundancy and effect on generalizability, particularly regarding enrollment of poor urban children, related to local IRB review.
    Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine 12/2009; 163(12):1130-4. · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Few studies have systematically assessed the reliability of pubertal markers; most are flawed by limited numbers of markers and ages studied. To conduct a comprehensive examination of inter-rater reliability in the assessment of boys' sexual maturity. Eight pairs of practitioners independently rated 79 consecutive boys aged 8-14 years. Two raters in each of eight practices independently rated boys aged 8-14 years, presenting for physical examinations, on key pubertal markers: pubic hair and genitalia (both on 5-point Tanner scales), testicular size (via palpation and comparison with a four-bead Prader orchidometer), and axillary hair (via a three-point scale). Intraclass correlations assessing degree of inter-rater reliability for pubertal markers ranged from 0.61 to 0.94 (all significant at p < 0.001). Rater Kappas for signs of pubertal initiation ranged from 0.49 to 0.79. Practitioners are able to reliably stage key markers of male puberty and identify signs of pubertal initiation.
    Journal of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism: JPEM 04/2009; 22(4):291-9. · 0.75 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Primary care clinicians participating in the Child Abuse Reporting Experience Study did not report all suspected physical child abuse to child protective services. This evaluation of study data seeks (1) to identify factors clinicians weighed when deciding whether to report injuries they suspected might have been caused by child abuse; (2) to describe clinicians' management strategies for children with injuries from suspected child abuse that were not reported; and (3) to describe how clinicians explained not reporting high-suspicion injuries. From the 434 pediatric primary care clinicians who participated in the Child Abuse Reporting Experience Study and who indicated they had provided care for a child with an injury they perceived as suspicious, a subsample of 75 of 81 clinicians completed a telephone interview. Interviewees included 36 clinicians who suspected child abuse but did not report the injury to child protective services (12 with high suspicion and 24 with some suspicion) and 39 who reported the suspicious injury. Interviews were analyzed for major themes and subthemes, including decision-making regarding reporting of suspected physical child abuse to child protective services and alternative management strategies. Four major themes emerged regarding the clinicians' reporting decisions, that is, familiarity with the family, reference to elements of the case history, use of available resources, and perception of expected outcomes of reporting to child protective services. When they did not report, clinicians planned alternative management strategies, including active or informal case follow-up management. When interviewed, some clinicians modified their original opinion that an injury was likely or very likely caused by abuse, to explain why they did not report to child protective services. Decisions about reporting to child protective services are guided by injury circumstances and history, knowledge of and experiences with the family, consultation with others, and previous experiences with child protective services.
    PEDIATRICS 09/2008; 122(2):259-66. · 4.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goals were to determine how frequently primary care clinicians reported suspected physical child abuse, the levels of suspicion associated with reporting, and what factors influenced reporting to child protective services. In this prospective observational study, 434 clinicians collected data on 15003 child injury visits, including information about the injury, child, family, likelihood that the injury was caused by child abuse (5-point scale), and whether the injury was reported to child protective services. Data on 327 clinicians indicating some suspicion of child abuse for 1683 injuries were analyzed. Clinicians reported 95 (6%) of the 1683 patients to child protective services. Clinicians did not report 27% of injuries considered likely or very likely caused by child abuse and 76% of injuries considered possibly caused by child abuse. Reporting rates were increased if the clinician perceived the injury to be inconsistent with the history and if the patient was referred to the clinician for suspected child abuse. Patients who had an injury that was not a laceration, who had >1 family risk factor, who had a serious injury, who had a child risk factor other than an inconsistent injury, who were black, or who were unfamiliar to the clinician were more likely to be reported. Clinicians who had not reported all suspicious injuries during their career or who had lost families as patients because of previous reports were more likely to report suspicious injuries. Clinicians had some degree of suspicion that approximately 10% of the injuries they evaluated were caused by child abuse. Clinicians did not report all suspicious injuries to child protective services, even if the level of suspicion was high (likely or very likely caused by child abuse). Child, family, and injury characteristics and clinician previous experiences influenced decisions to report.
    PEDIATRICS 09/2008; 122(3):611-9. · 4.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to determine whether patients' families' violence-prevention behaviors would be affected by their primary care practitioner's use of a violence-prevention clinical intervention during the routine well-child examination. In this cluster-randomized, controlled trial (2002-2006), 137 Pediatric Research in Office Settings practices were randomly assigned and initiated patient recruitment for either an office-based violence-prevention intervention or a control group (educational handout on literacy promotion provided). Primary caregivers of children who were aged 2 to 11 years and presented for a well-child visit were surveyed at baseline and 1 and 6 months. Practitioners were trained to (1) review a parent previsit summary regarding patient-family behavior and parental concern about media use, discipline strategies, and children's exposure to firearms, (2) counsel using brief principles of motivational interviewing, (3) identify and provide local agency resources for anger and behavior management when indicated, and (4) instruct patient-families on use of tangible tools (minute timers to monitor media time/timeouts and firearm cable locks to store firearms more safely where children live or play). Main outcomes were change over time in self-reported media use <120 minutes per day, use of timeouts, and use of firearm cable locks. Generalized estimating equation analysis revealed a significant effect at 6 months for decreased media use and safer firearm storage. The intervention group compared with the control group showed an increase in limiting media use to <120 minutes per day. There was no significant effect for timeout use. There was a substantial increase in storing firearms with cable locks for the intervention group versus a decrease for the control group. This randomized, controlled trial demonstrated decreased media exposure and increased safe firearm storage as a result of a brief office-based violence-prevention approach.
    PEDIATRICS 08/2008; 122(1):e15-25. · 4.47 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regional primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) have made important contributions to the primary care literature, but have not been well-described. This study compares pediatric patient characteristics within a new regional PBRN to pediatric patient characteristics from two previously published national data sets. Descriptive patient data were collected by 25 Southwestern Ohio Ambulatory Research Network (SOAR-Net) clinicians between July 2003 and June 2004. These data were compared to pediatric patient characteristics from 57 Pediatric Research in Office Setting clinicians and 33 primary care pediatric clinicians who participated in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. SOAR-Net patients were almost twice as likely to use Medicaid (41.9% vs 22.0%/22.4%, p = 0.0001). SOAR-Net patients also were more likely to be African-American (23.7% vs 7.5%/17.6%, p = 0.002). About one third of patients in each sample were seen for a well visit. Regional networks with unique characteristics, such as a large number of Medicaid patients and/or many underserved minority patients have the potential to make significant contributions to primary care research by focusing on problems experienced within those segments of a population (e.g., indigent children and their families).
    Southern medical journal 07/2008; 101(7):693-8. · 0.92 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The feasibility and effectiveness of a distance-based quality improvement model were examined in a cohort of Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) practices, with the goal of improving immunization rates and practitioner behaviors and attitudes. Of an initially assessed 82 practices, 29 with baseline rates of < or =88% for children 8 to 15 months of age were randomized into year-long paper-based education or distance-based quality improvement intervention groups. Outcomes were utility/helpfulness of quality improvement modalities, immunization rate change, and behavior/attitude change. Quality improvement participants attended approximately 75% of monthly conference calls but used the quality improvement Listserv and Web site infrequently (mean 1.09 and 0.92 uses, respectively). Helpfulness ratings of quality improvement modalities mirrored usage. Analyses revealed a 4.9% increase in quality improvement group immunization rates (P = .061), a 0.8% education group increase (P = .752), and a 4.1% difference between groups (P = .261). More quality improvement practices adopted systems identifying children behind in immunizations. A distance-based quality improvement model is feasible and may improve immunization rates.
    Clinical Pediatrics 01/2008; 47(1):25-36. · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Postpartum discharge of mothers and infants who are not medically or psychosocially ready may place the family at risk. Most studies of postpartum length of stay, however, do not reflect the necessary complexity of decision-making. With this study we aimed to characterize decision-making on the day of postpartum discharge from the perspective of multiple key informants and identify correlates of maternal and newborn unreadiness for discharge. This was a prospective observational cohort study of healthy term infants with mothers, pediatric providers, and obstetricians as key informants to assess the decision-making process regarding mother-infant dyad unreadiness for discharge. A mother-infant dyad was defined as unready for postpartum hospital discharge if > or = 1 of 3 informants perceived that either the mother or infant should stay longer at time of nursery discharge. Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires on the day of discharge. Of 4300 mother-infant dyads, unreadiness was identified in 17% as determined by the mother (11%), pediatrician (5%), obstetrician (1%), and > or = 2 informants (< 1%). Significant correlates of unreadiness were as follows: black non-Hispanic maternal race/ethnicity, maternal history of chronic disease, primigravid status, inadequate prenatal care as determined by the Kotelchuck Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index, delivering during nonroutine hours, in-hospital neonatal problems, receiving a limited number of in-hospital classes, and intent to breastfeed. Mothers, pediatricians, and obstetricians must make decisions about postpartum discharge jointly, because perceptions of unreadiness often differ. Sensitivity toward specific maternal vulnerabilities and an emphasis on perinatal education to insure individualized discharge plans may increase readiness and determine optimal timing for discharge and follow-up care.
    PEDIATRICS 09/2007; 120(2):e391-400. · 4.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine whether pediatricians and dietitians can implement an office-based obesity prevention program using motivational interviewing as the primary intervention. Nonrandomized clinical trial. Fifteen pediatricians belonging to Pediatric Research in Office Settings, a national practice-based research network, and 5 registered dietitians were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (1) control; (2) minimal intervention (pediatrician only); or (3) intensive intervention (pediatrician and registered dietitian). Primary care pediatric offices. Ninety-one children presenting for well-child care visits met eligibility criteria of being aged 3 to 7 years and having a body mass index (calculated as the weight in kilograms divided by the height in meters squared) at the 85th percentile or greater but lower than the 95th percentile for the age or having a normal weight and a parent with a body mass index of 30 or greater. Pediatricians and registered dietitians in the intervention groups received motivational interviewing training. Parents of children in the minimal intervention group received 1 motivational interviewing session from the physician, and parents of children in the intensive intervention group received 2 motivational interviewing sessions each from the pediatrician and the registered dietitian. Change in the body mass index-for-age percentile. At 6 months' follow-up, there was a decrease of 0.6, 1.9, and 2.6 body mass index percentiles in the control, minimal, and intensive groups, respectively. The differences in body mass index percentile change between the 3 groups were nonsignificant (P=.85). The patient dropout rates were 2 (10%), 13 (32%), and 15 (50%) for the control, minimal, and intensive groups, respectively. Fifteen (94%) of the parents reported that the intervention helped them think about changing their family's eating habits. Motivational interviewing by pediatricians and dietitians is a promising office-based strategy for preventing childhood obesity. However, additional studies are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of this intervention in practice settings.
    Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 06/2007; 161(5):495-501. · 4.28 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our objective with this study was to assess the extent to which patients who are seen by practitioners in Pediatric Research in Office Settings, a national primary care practice-based research network, are representative of those who are seen in ambulatory office-based pediatric primary care in the United States. Pediatric Research in Office Settings patient data were collected from the offices of 57 randomly selected network practitioners as part of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded effort to describe primary care visits and replicate the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey in primary care practice-based research networks. These data were from 1706 randomly selected pediatric patient visits that occurred between March and June 2002. National comparison data were 948 randomly selected pediatric patient visits that occurred between March and June 2000 in the offices of the 33 primary care pediatric practitioners who had participated in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. The groups were compared on patient demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, as represented by Medicaid status), visit characteristics (percentages of patients referred, practitioner designation of visit as acute versus nonacute, and continuity of care), the top patient/parent-articulated reasons for visit, and the top practitioner diagnoses. Comparisons revealed substantial similarities between Pediatric Research in Office Settings and national data, including gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and visit characteristics. Differences were noted for age and race, with Pediatric Research in Office Settings children approximately 1 year older and comprising a significantly lower proportion of black patients than their National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey counterparts. Although the top 6 reasons that were articulated by parents for outpatient visits in the 2 groups were remarkably similar in rank order and proportions, there were overall differences, mostly attributable to a larger number of the "other" category in the Pediatric Research in Office Settings cases. There were no significant differences among the top 5 practitioner visit diagnoses between the Pediatric Research in Office Settings and National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. The Pediatric Research in Office Settings patient population is reasonably representative of patients who are seen in US ambulatory office-based pediatric primary care practices; therefore, the Pediatric Research in Office Settings is an appropriate laboratory for studies of care in such settings.
    PEDIATRICS 09/2006; 118(2):e228-34. · 4.47 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe what pediatric primary care providers involved in the Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) research network think are important yet inadequately addressed questions in pediatric primary care research. A total of 1785 pediatric primary care providers in the PROS network were asked what they thought were important yet inadequately addressed areas of primary care research. We used a single, open-ended question in a mail survey. Written answers to this question were analyzed by qualitative methods to determine the main themes of interest to pediatric primary care providers. Overall survey response rate was 48.7%; the open-ended question yielded 1109 individual answers. Six lines of inquiry were identified as being important to these providers: (1) effective counseling techniques to use in anticipatory guidance; (2) strategies to prevent and treat obesity; (3) the effectiveness of well-child care; (4) ongoing management of patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; (5) the role of the primary care provider in caring for children with mental health needs; and (6) optimal organization of office practices. The translation of research into practice may be improved by a better understanding of the needs and interests of those who see pediatric patients in the primary care setting.
    Ambulatory Pediatrics 01/2006; 6(6):352-5. · 1.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Approximately 70 percent of pediatric care occurs in ambulatory settings, yet there has been little research on errors and harm in these settings. Given the importance of understanding harm in ambulatory pediatrics, this study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) as part of the University of North Carolina (UNC) Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (CERTs), in partnership with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) Network. Purpose: Learning from Errors in Ambulatory Pediatrics (LEAP) was designed to (1) develop a secure, Web-based tool for reporting errors; (2) identify the types and range of errors; and (3) identify errors that can be generalized across multiple practices. Methods: Data collection was pilot-tested in five pediatric practices in March 2003, using a secure, Web-based tool. After revising the tool, 14 sites collected data from June to September 2003. Three members of the research team (one pediatrician and two patient safety researchers) independently coded the qualitative error reports using the constant comparative method. Reports were coded by medical domain, problem types, and child-specific factors. Coding discrepancies were reconciled by consensus. Results: Study participants reported 136 errors. Data collection via the Web-based tool was very successful; participating practitioners reported a high degree of satisfaction and a minimal number of problems. Errors were reported in several domains: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, patient identification, communication, falls, equipment, and administration. For example, one reported treatment error was “prescription changed from liquid to capsule form of anticonvulsant. Mom misunderstood directions and gave both meds for one week. Child developed blurred vision, stuttering, and ataxia.” Conclusions and implications: Physicians reported errors, yet various members of the care team (parents, nurses, pharmacists) discovered the errors. This suggests that everyone has a role in preventing errors from reaching the child. Information learned from this study will be instrumental in the subsequent design of interventions to reduce errors and improve pediatric patient safety. The success of the Web-based, data collection tool points the way for future online data collection efforts. Further research will clarify the categories of harm observed in ambulatory settings, and explore venues for presenting errors and collaboratively designing and testing solutions.
    01/2005;

Publication Stats

1k Citations
44 Downloads
2k Views
83.97 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2006–2011
    • American Academy of Pediatrics
      Elk Grove Village, Illinois, United States
  • 2008
    • Wright State University
      • Department of Pediatrics
      Dayton, OH, United States
    • Vanderbilt University
      • Department of Pediatrics
      Nashville, MI, United States
  • 1997
    • University of Washington Seattle
      • Department of Pediatrics
      Seattle, WA, United States