Sixteen clinical indicators were created to represent measures of adherence with recommendations within the Pediatric Guidelines (Supplemental Digital Content - Table 1). The number and type of study indicators for each treatment location was determined a priori by the study group. While we initially derived indicators from the Pediatric guidelines 2003, we had to operationalize some variables. This was an iterative process involving the project investigators. The effect of adherence was unable to be examined for the subset of indicators with close to 100% adherence (Supplemental Digital Content - Table 4). The indicators examined at each treatment location are given in Supplemental Digital Content - Table 1. The number of indicators does not map directly to the Guidelines due to duplication of indicators across some chapters and involvement of multiple indicators in others (Supplemental Digital Content - Table 1). Since patients may undergo surgery either before or after admission to the ICU, intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) indicators were collected for both the OR and ICU. Five indicators were collected for the PH setting, 5 for the ED, 10 for the OR, and 14 for the ICU. For some indicators, we added a time component based on time-dependent effect on patient outcomes. Each clinical indicator was examined for conditionality; clinical indicators were considered relevant for patients who had underlying conditions that would have qualified for given treatments. We examined ICP in a number of ways. First, we have defined high ICP (intracranial hypertension) as presence of cerebral herniation (unequal pupils, or hypertension & bradycardia, as determined clinically) or administration of mannitol and/or hypertonic saline, or ICP > 20mmHg if ICP monitor was placed. These definitions were used in each treatment location (Prehospital [PH; includes EMS & Index hospital], ED, OR and ICU; Supplemental Digital Content - Table 1). We also examined the effect of ICP on CPP (MAP – ICP) as part of examining hyperventilation as opposed to normoventilation in the presence of cerebral herniation, and as part of the decompressive craniectomy indicator. Lastly, we examined ICP effects in the context of barbiturate use in the absence of hypotension for refractory high ICP and use of hypertonic saline to treat high ICP. The main outcome was the association of adherence across all treatment locations with mortality and discharge Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score. Secondary outcomes were the association with the location-specific adherence to indicators. For both summary measures, we included only those indicators with a protective point risk estimate after adjustment for all confounding variables. Summary measures were defined as the sum of indicators to which care was adherent divided by the number of relevant adherence indicators for a given patient at a given treatment location or across all locations.
Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol. The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link:
Access Free Full Text.
Vavilala M.S., Kernic M.A., Wang J., Kannan N., Mink R.B., Wainwright M.S., Groner J.I., Bell M.J., Giza C.C., Zatzick D.F., Ellenbogen R.G., Boyle L.N., Mitchell P.H, & Rivara F.P. (2014). Acute Care Clinical Indicators Associated with Discharge Outcomes in Children with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. Critical care medicine, 42(10), 2258-2266.
Other organizations :
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles Medical Center, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Lurie Children's Hospital
Adherence to clinical indicators across all treatment locations (Prehospital, ED, OR, ICU)
Location-specific adherence to indicators
dependent variables
Mortality
Discharge Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score
control variables
Confounding variables (adjusted for in the analysis)
controls
No positive or negative controls were explicitly mentioned.
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required