Revised Pediatric Emergency Assessment Tool (RePEAT): A Severity Index for Pediatric Emergency Care

The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Filadelfia, Pennsylvania, United States
Academic Emergency Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.01). 05/2007; 14(4):316-23. DOI: 10.1197/j.aem.2006.11.015
Source: PubMed


To develop and validate a multivariable model, using information available at the time of patient triage, to predict the level of care provided to pediatric emergency patients for use as a severity of illness measure.
This was a retrospective cohort study of 5,521 children 18 years of age or younger treated at four emergency departments (EDs) over a 12-month period. Data were obtained from abstraction of patient records. Logistic regression was used to develop (75% of sample) and validate (25% of sample) models to predict any nonroutine diagnostic or therapeutic intervention in the ED and admission to the hospital. Data on ED length of stay and hospital costs were also obtained.
Eight predictor variables were included in the final models: presenting complaint, age, triage acuity category, arrival by emergency medical services, current use of prescription medications, and three triage vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature). The resulting models had adequate goodness of fit in both derivation and validation samples. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.73 for the ED intervention model and 0.85 for the admission model. The Revised Pediatric Emergency Assessment Tool (RePEAT) score was then calculated as the sum of the predicted probability of receiving intervention and twice the predicted probability of admission. The RePEAT score had a significant univariate association with ED costs (r = 0.44) and with ED length of stay (r = 0.27) and contributed significantly to the fit of multivariable models comparing these outcomes across sites.
The RePEAT score accurately predicts level of care provided for pediatric emergency patients and may provide a useful means of risk adjustment when benchmarking outcomes

Download full-text


Available from: Evaline A Alessandrini, Feb 11, 2015
  • Source
    • "Acuity ratings exist for different levels of hospital care, including acute [2] and emergency care [3], and provide an indication of patient severity. Patient acuity ratings help hospitals to delineate care provider roles, employ evidence-based practice, promote efficiency, and evaluate effectiveness [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. No acuity measures exist for pediatric post-acute rehabilitation hospital care, however, making it difficult to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of clinical practice and research. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Post-Acute Acuity Rating for Children (PAARC) is the first known acuity rating intended to reflect medical severity based on age, reason for admission, diagnoses, dependence in activities of daily living, and technology reliance for children admitted to post-acute care rehabilitation hospitals. Content validity was tested using an expert panel scoring the Content Validity Index (CVI). Concurrent validity was examined using clinician’s opinion of acuity at admission, the Complexity Index, and All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group (APR-DRG) codes. Predictive validity was examined with acute care readmission within 30 days. Interrater reliability was assessed using admission histories from closed cases. Content validity was established and concurrent validity was moderate to high with clinician opinion (rho = .76, p < . 001 ), the Complexity Index (rho = .76, p < . 001 ), and APR-DRGs (rho = .349, p = . 001 ). Predictive validity was moderate (rho = .504, p = . 005 ) and returns to acute care within 30 days. Interrater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.92–0.90, p < . 001 ). Experts agreed that the PAARC’s content is relevant, simple, and representative of the population. The PAARC measured well against indicators of medical complexity for pediatric outpatient care and medical record coding and was reliable between raters. This work supports proceeding with additional development and validity testing of the PAARC.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reducing unnecessary ambulance transports may have operational and economic benefits for emergency medical services (EMS) agencies and receiving emergency departments. However, no consensus exists on the ability of paramedics to accurately and safely identify patients who do not require ambulance transport. Objective. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated studies reporting U.S. paramedics' ability to determine medical necessity of ambulance transport. PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Library databases were searched using Cochrane Prehospital and Emergency Care Field search terms combined with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "triage"; "utilization review"; "health services misuse"; "severity of illness index," and "trauma severity indices." Two reviewers independently evaluated each title to identify relevant studies; each abstract then underwent independent review to identify studies requiring full appraisal. Inclusion criteria were original research; emergency responses; determinations of medical necessity by U.S. paramedics; and a reference standard comparison. The primary outcome measure of interest was the negative predictive value (NPV) of paramedic determinations. For studies reporting sufficient data, agreement between paramedic and reference standard determinations was measured using kappa; sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were also calculated. From 9,752 identified titles, 214 abstracts were evaluated, with 61 studies selected for full review. Five studies met the inclusion criteria (interrater reliability, kappa = 0.75). Reference standards included physician opinion (n = 3), hospital admission (n = 1), and a composite of physician opinion and patient clinical circumstances (n = 1). The NPV ranged from 0.610 to 0.997. Results lacked homogeneity across studies; meta-analysis using a random-effects model produced an aggregate NPV of 0.912 (95% confidence interval: 0.707-0.978). Only two studies reported complete 2 x 2 data: kappa was 0.105 and 0.427; sensitivity was 0.992 and 0.841; specificity was 0.356 and 0.581; and PPV was 0.158 and 0.823. The results of the few studies evaluating U.S. paramedic determinations of medical necessity for ambulance transport vary considerably, and only two studies report complete data. The aggregate NPV of the paramedic determinations is 0.91, with a lower confidence limit of 0.71. These data do not support the practice of paramedics' determining whether patients require ambulance transport. These findings have implications for EMS systems, emergency departments, and third-party payers.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2009 · Prehospital Emergency Care
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To develop and prospectively validate a risk-adjustment tool in acute asthma. Data were obtained from two large studies on acute asthma, the Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC) and the National Emergency Department Safety Study (NEDSS) cohorts. Both studies involved >60 emergency departments (EDs) and were performed during 1996-2001 and 2003-2006, respectively. Both included patients aged 18-54 years presenting to the ED with acute asthma. Retrospective cohort studies. Clinical information was obtained from medical record review. The risk index was derived in the MARC cohort and then was prospectively validated in the NEDSS cohort. There were 3,515 patients in the derivation cohort and 3,986 in the validation cohort. The risk index included nine variables (age, sex, current smoker, ever admitted for asthma, ever intubated for asthma, duration of symptoms, respiratory rate, peak expiratory flow, and number of beta-agonist treatments) and showed satisfactory discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.75) and calibration ( p=.30 for Hosmer-Lemeshow test) when applied to the validation cohort. We developed and validated a novel risk-adjustment tool in acute asthma. This tool can be used for health care provider profiling to identify outliers for quality improvement purposes.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2009 · Health Services Research
Show more