Explore the vast range of titles available.

To identify tools that predict the risk of complications in patients presenting to outpatient clinics or emergency departments (ED) with acute infectious diarrhea. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception to July 2021. Articles reporting on the derivation or validation of a score to stratify the risk of intravenous rehydration or hospitalization among patients with acute infectious diarrhea in the ED or outpatient clinic were retained for analysis. Five articles reporting on two different tools were identified. Developed to assess the risk of hospitalization of children, the EsVida scale has not been externally validated. Developed originally to assess the level of dehydration in children, the Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS) was evaluated as a risk stratification tool. For predicting intravenous rehydration, a CDS score ≥ 1 showed a sensitivity between 0.73 and 0.88 and specificity between 0.38 and 0.69, whereas a CDS score ≥ 5 showed a sensitivity between 0.06 and 0.32 and specificity between 0.94 and 0.99. For predicting hospitalization, a CDS score ≥ 1 showed a sensitivity between 0.74 and 1.00 and specificity between 0.34 and 0.38, whereas a CDS score ≥ 5 showed a sensitivity between 0.26 and 0.62 and specificity between 0.66 and 0.96. High heterogeneity among studies and unclear risk of bias precluded meta-analysis. As a risk-stratification tool, the CDS has been validated only for children. Further research is needed to develop and validate a tool suitable for adults in the ED. •Risk stratification tools may optimize the use of healthcare resources.•Acute infectious diarrhea is a major public health issue.•Two scales have been used to predict the risk of complications.•The Clinical Dehydration Scale was validated for children aged 1 month to 5 years.•The EsVida scale was validated for patients younger than 13 years of age.

Children with major trauma have better outcomes when treated in pediatric trauma centres, but population-based data on access to these centres in Canada are lacking. We aimed to estimate the proportion of children with major trauma who accessed a pediatric trauma centre in Canada (through direct transport or transfer) and compare access across provinces. We conducted a population-based cohort study of children (aged < 16 yr) who were admitted to hospital after a major trauma (Injury Severity Score > 12) in 9 Canadian provinces (excluding Quebec) from 2016 to 2021. We estimated the adjusted incidence of access to a pediatric trauma centre across provinces using robust Poisson regression and examined the effect of age and injury severity in subgroup analyses. Of 3007 children with major trauma, 2335 (77.6%) were directly transported (n = 879, 29.2%) or transferred (n = 1456, 48.4%) to a pediatric trauma centre. Crude access to pediatric trauma centres was higher for younger children (80.9% among those aged 0 to 5 yr, 81.7% among those aged 6 to 12 yr, 69.9% among those aged 13 to 15 yr) and those with critical injuries (88.8%). Adjusted pediatric trauma centre access was lower in British Columbia (relative risk [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.74), the Atlantic provinces (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.88), and Saskatchewan (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.86) than Ontario, but was higher in Alberta (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10) and Manitoba (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.19). Interprovincial differences were present across all subgroups (p < 0.0001). Across 9 Canadian provinces, 1 in 4 children with major trauma did not receive care in a pediatric trauma centre. These results suggest the opportunity for improvement in Canadian trauma systems to ensure that all children receive optimal injury care.

Background: The aim of this study was to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for comparing the experience of care received by ambulatory patients with acute unexpected needs presenting in emergency departments (EDs), walk-in clinics, and primary care practices. Methods: The Ambulatory Patient EXperience (APEX) questionnaire was developed using a 5-phase mixed-methods approach. The questionnaire was pretested by asking potential users to rate its clarity, usefulness, redundancy, content and face validities, and discrimination on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree). The pre-final version was then tested in a pilot study. Results: The final questionnaire is composed of 61 questions divided into 7 sections. In the pretest (n = 25), median responses were 8 and above for all dimensions assessed. In the pilot study, 63 participants were enrolled. Adjusted results show that access, cleanliness, and feeling treated with respect and dignity by nurses and physicians were significantly better in the clinics than in the ED. Conclusion: We developed a questionnaire to assess and compare experience of ambulatory care in different clinical settings.

Background: Emergency department (ED) visits are critical events for older adults, but little is known regarding their experiences, particularly about their physical needs, the involvement of accompanying family members, and the transition back to the community. Objective: To explore experiences of an ED visit among patients aged 75 and older. Methods: In a mixed-methods study, a cohort of patients aged 75 and older (or a family member) discharged from the ED back to the community was recruited from 4 urban EDs. A week following discharge, structured telephone interviews supplemented with open-ended questions were conducted. A subsample (76 patients, 32 family members) was purposefully selected. Verbatim transcripts of responses to the open-ended questions were thematically analyzed. Results: Experiences related to physical needs included comfort, equipment supporting mobility and autonomy, help when needed, and access to drink and food. Family members required opportunities to provide patient support and greater involvement in their care. At discharge, patients/families required adequate discharge education, resolution of their health problem, information on medications, and greater certainty about planned follow-up medical and home care services. Conclusions: Our findings suggest several areas that could be targeted to improve patient and family perceptions of the care at an ED visit.

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this study was: (1) to adapt the time‐driven activity‐based costing (TDABC) method to emergency department (ED) ambulatory care; (2) to estimate the cost of care associated with frequently encountered ambulatory conditions; and (3) to compare costs calculated using estimated time and objectively measured time. MethodsTDABC was applied to a retrospective cohort of patients with upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, unspecified abdominal pain, lower back pain and limb lacerations who visited an ED in Québec City (Canada) during fiscal year 2015–2016. The calculated cost of care was the product of the time required to complete each care procedure and the cost per minute of each human resource or equipment involved. Costing based on durations estimated by care professionals were compared to those based on objective measurements in the field. ResultsOverall, 220 care episodes were included and 3080 time measurements of 75 different processes were collected. Differences between costs calculated using estimated and measured times were statistically significant for all conditions except lower back pain and ranged from $4.30 to $55.20 (US) per episode. Differences were larger for conditions requiring more advanced procedures, such as imaging or the attention of ED professionals. ConclusionsThe greater the use of advanced procedures or the involvement of ED professionals in the care, the greater is the discrepancy between estimated‐time‐based and measured‐time‐based costing. TDABC should be applied using objective measurement of the time per procedure.