The care of the concussed pediatric patient prior to presentation to primary care pediatrician versus concussion specialists: Implications for management

B. Taubman, A. Michael Luciani, David B Gealt, Thomas P Drake, Philip T. Cochetti, J. Farrar
{"title":"The care of the concussed pediatric patient prior to presentation to primary care pediatrician versus concussion specialists: Implications for management","authors":"B. Taubman, A. Michael Luciani, David B Gealt, Thomas P Drake, Philip T. Cochetti, J. Farrar","doi":"10.1177/2059700221998921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Absent adequate randomized control trials to inform appropriate treatment for concussion in pediatric patients, guidelines have been developed based on expert opinion and observational data that may not apply to all groups. This study examines differences in the previous clinical care between concussed patients who present in pediatric practice and specialty clinics. Differences found might influence treatment recommendations for each setting. Study design Prospective data collected from a pediatric practice in 2011 to 2013 were compared to chart review data from two specialty clinics between 2015 and 2017. In all three groups patients 11–19 years of age with an ICD9 billing code for concussion were included if they met the 4th International Consensus definition of concussion. Patients were excluded if hospitalized or had abnormal CNS imaging. Results The time between injury and presentation was substantially longer in specialty clinic patients versus those seen in the primary pediatric care office. (median 10 vs. 2 days-p < 0.001) Primary care patients presenting had higher rates of immediate rest after injury, 61.4% vs 27.9% (p < 0.001). More specialty clinic patients had been seen in the emergency departments prior to presentation (47.5% vs. 18.8% p < 0.001) regardless of rest status at presentation to the office. Conclusion Several differences in previous clinical care between the groups were found. These included the time of presentation from injury, rates of cognitive rest both immediate and non-immediate, and emergency department visits. These differences may have implications for management recommendations. Accordingly, the appropriate treatment for patients seen by the primary pediatric care physicians may be different from those referred to specialty care. Given these findings randomized controlled trails should be conducted independently in both groups of patients.","PeriodicalId":92541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of concussion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2059700221998921","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of concussion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2059700221998921","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective Absent adequate randomized control trials to inform appropriate treatment for concussion in pediatric patients, guidelines have been developed based on expert opinion and observational data that may not apply to all groups. This study examines differences in the previous clinical care between concussed patients who present in pediatric practice and specialty clinics. Differences found might influence treatment recommendations for each setting. Study design Prospective data collected from a pediatric practice in 2011 to 2013 were compared to chart review data from two specialty clinics between 2015 and 2017. In all three groups patients 11–19 years of age with an ICD9 billing code for concussion were included if they met the 4th International Consensus definition of concussion. Patients were excluded if hospitalized or had abnormal CNS imaging. Results The time between injury and presentation was substantially longer in specialty clinic patients versus those seen in the primary pediatric care office. (median 10 vs. 2 days-p < 0.001) Primary care patients presenting had higher rates of immediate rest after injury, 61.4% vs 27.9% (p < 0.001). More specialty clinic patients had been seen in the emergency departments prior to presentation (47.5% vs. 18.8% p < 0.001) regardless of rest status at presentation to the office. Conclusion Several differences in previous clinical care between the groups were found. These included the time of presentation from injury, rates of cognitive rest both immediate and non-immediate, and emergency department visits. These differences may have implications for management recommendations. Accordingly, the appropriate treatment for patients seen by the primary pediatric care physicians may be different from those referred to specialty care. Given these findings randomized controlled trails should be conducted independently in both groups of patients.
脑震荡儿童患者在向初级保健儿科医生和脑震荡专家就诊前的护理:对管理的启示
目的由于缺乏足够的随机对照试验来为儿科患者脑震荡的适当治疗提供信息,因此根据专家意见和观察数据制定了指南,这些指南可能不适用于所有组。这项研究考察了在儿科诊所和专科诊所就诊的脑震荡患者在既往临床护理方面的差异。发现的差异可能会影响每种情况下的治疗建议。研究设计将2011年至2013年从儿科诊所收集的前瞻性数据与2015年至2017年间两个专科诊所的图表审查数据进行比较。在所有三组中,患者11-19 如果符合第四次国际共识对脑震荡的定义,则包括脑震荡ICD9计费代码的年龄。如果患者住院或中枢神经系统成像异常,则将其排除在外。结果与在初级儿科护理办公室就诊的患者相比,专科诊所患者从受伤到出现症状的时间要长得多。(中位数10 vs.2 days-p < 0.001)初级保健患者受伤后立即休息的比率较高,分别为61.4%和27.9%(p < 0.001)。更多的专科门诊患者在就诊前曾在急诊科就诊(47.5%对18.8%,p < 0.001),而不管在向办公室展示时的休息状态如何。结论两组患者在既往临床护理方面存在一定差异。其中包括受伤后的表现时间、即时和非即时认知休息率以及急诊科就诊率。这些差异可能会对管理层的建议产生影响。因此,初级儿科护理医生对患者的适当治疗可能与转诊到专科护理的患者不同。鉴于这些发现,应在两组患者中独立进行随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信