Introduction: Childhood obesity is a serious concern in the United States, with over one third of the pediatric population classified as obese. Abdominal pain is one of the most common chief complaints among pediatric emergency department (ED) visits. We hypothesized that overweight and obese children being evaluated in the ED for abdominal pain would have higher resource utilization than their normal and underweight peers.

Methods: This was a retrospective review of pediatric patients <18 years who presented with abdominal pain to the ED of a tertiary care center from January 1, 2014–September 3, 2020. Patients were excluded if they did not have both a height and weight recorded. We categorized patients as underweight (body mass index [BMI] <5th percentile); normal weight (BMI 5th to <85th percentile), overweight (BMI 85th to<95th percentile); or obese (BMI ≥95th percentile). Descriptive statistics were used to examine the study population. We used chi-square tests to examine the differences in patient characteristics between normal/underweight patients and overweight/obese patients. The Kruskal-Wallis test was completed for examining differences in the medians. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine visit characteristics associated with overweight/obese patients, including ED interventions, testing, and length of stay (LOS).

Results: Of the 184 subjects included in the analysis, nine (4.9%) were underweight, 108 (58.7%) werenormal weight, 21 (11.4%) were overweight, and 46 (25.0%) were obese. Patients with a BMI of ≥85th percentile were older (median 15 vs 13 years, P = 0.01). They were otherwise similar in demographics. There was no significant difference between normal/underweight and overweight/obese subjects in disposition (37% vs 43% discharge, P = 0.38), 72-hour return (7% vs 6%, P = 0.82), ED LOS (median 4.42 vs 3.95 hours, P = 0.195), or inpatient LOS (median 42.0 vs 34.2 hours, P = 0.06). There were no statistically significant differences in total number of ED tests or interventions received by overweight/obese patients compared to normal/underweight patients, and each subject received a median of six tests (interquartile range [IQR] 4–7) and two interventions (IQR 1–3).

Conclusion: Among pediatric patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain, we found that patient characteristics and ED resource utilization (including testing, intervention, disposition, and LOS) did not differ significantly across BMI categories.

Introduction: Few emergency department (ED)-specific fall-risk screening tools exist. The goals of this study were to externally validate Tiedemann et al’s two-item, ED-specific fall screening tool and test handgrip strength to determine their ability to predict future falls. We hypothesized that both the two-item fall screening and handgrip strength would identify older adults at increased risk of falling.

Methods: A convenience sample of patients ages 65 and older presenting to a single-center academic ED were enrolled. Patients were asked screening questions and had their handgrip strength measured during their ED visit. Patients were given one point if they answered “yes” to “Are you taking six or more medications?” and two points for answering “yes” to “Have you had two or more falls in the past year?” to give a cumulative score from 0 to 3. Participants had monthly follow- ups, via postcard questionnaires, for six months after their ED visit. We performed sensitivity and specificity analyses, and used likelihood ratios and frequencies to assess the relationship between risk factors and falls, fall-related injury, and death.

Results: In this study, 247 participants were enrolled with 143 participants completing follow-up (58%). During the six-month follow-up period, 34% of participants had at least one fall and 30 patients died (12.1%). Fall rates for individual Tiedemann scores were 14.3%, 33.3%, 60.0% and 72.2% for scores of 0,1, 2 and 3, respectively. Low handgrip strength was associated with a higher proportion of falls (46.3%), but had poor sensitivity (52.1%).

Conclusion: Handgrip strength was not sensitive in screening older adults for future falls. The Tiedemann rule differentiated older adults who were at high risk for future falls from low risk individuals, and can be considered by EDs wanting to screen older adults for future fall risk.

Introduction: Distal forearm fractures (DFF) account for 1.5% of emergency department (ED) visits in the United States. Clinicians frequently obtain imaging above/below the location of injury to rule out additional injuries. We sought to determine the incidence of associated proximal fractures (APF) in the setting of DFF and to evaluate the imaging practices in a nationally representative sample of EDs.

Methods: We queried the 2013 National Emergency Department Sample  using International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, diagnostic codes for DFF and APF. Current Procedural Technology codes identified associated imaging studies. We calculated national estimates using a weighted analysis of patient and hospital-level characteristics associated with APF and imaging practices. An analysis of costs estimated the financial impact of additional imaging in patients with DFF using Medicare reimbursement to approximate costs according to the 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Results: In 2013, an estimated 297,755 ED visits (weighted) were associated with a DFF, of which 1.6% (4836 cases) had an APF. The incidence of APF was lower among females (odds ratio [OR] (0.76); 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.91) but higher in metropolitan teaching hospitals compared to metropolitan non-teaching hospitals (OR [2.39]; 95% CI, 1.43-3.99) and Level 1 trauma centers (OR [3.9]; 95%, 1.91-7.96) compared to non-trauma centers. Approximately 40% (n = 117,948) of those with only DFF received non-wrist radiographs and 19% (n = 55,236) underwent non-wrist/non-forearm imaging. Factors independently associated with additional imaging included gender, payer, patient and hospital rurality, hospital region, teaching status, ownership, and trauma center level. Nearly $3.6 million (2018 U.S. dollars) was spent on the aforementioned additional imaging.

Conclusion: Despite the frequency of proximal imaging in patients with DFF, the incidence of APF was low. Further study to identify risk factors for APF based on mechanism and physical examination factors may result in reduced imaging and decreased avoidable healthcare spending.

Objective

Study design

Results

Conclusions

Study objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion