↓ Skip to main content

Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase the Use of Nasogastric Hydration in Infants With Bronchiolitis

Overview of attention for article published in Hospital Pediatrics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase the Use of Nasogastric Hydration in Infants With Bronchiolitis
Published in
Hospital Pediatrics, August 2017
DOI 10.1542/hpeds.2016-0160
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mythili Srinivasan, Cassandra Pruitt, Erin Casey, Keerat Dhaliwal, Cori DeSanto, Richard Markus, Ayelet Rosen

Abstract

Intravenous (IV) hydration is used primarily in children with bronchiolitis at our institution. Because nasogastric (NG) hydration can provide better nutrition, the goal of our quality improvement (QI) initiative was to increase the rate of NG hydration in eligible children 1 to 23 months old with bronchiolitis by 20% over 6 months. We used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to increase the use of NG hydration in eligible children. Interventions included educational and system-based changes and sharing parental feedback with providers. Chart reviews were performed to identify the rates of NG hydration, which were plotted over time in a statistical process control p chart. The balancing measure was the rate of complications in children with NG versus IV hydration. Two hundred and ninety-three children who were hospitalized with bronchiolitis needed supplemental hydration during the QI initiative (January 2016-April 2016). Ninety-one children were candidates for NG hydration, and 53 (58%) received NG hydration. The rates of NG hydration increased from a baseline of 0% pre-QI bronchiolitis season (January 2015-April 2015) to 58% during the initiative. There was no aspiration and no accidental placement of the NG tube into a child's airway. Nine patients (17%) in the NG group had a progression of disease requiring nil per os status, and 6 of these were transferred to the PICU whereas none of those in the IV group were transferred to the PICU. Post-QI initiative, the majority of nurses (63%) and physicians (95%) stated that they are more likely to consider NG hydration in children with bronchiolitis. We successfully increased the rates of NG hydration in eligible children with bronchiolitis by using educational and system-based interventions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 17 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,431,953
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Hospital Pediatrics
#1,123
of 1,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,916
of 317,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hospital Pediatrics
#22
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.