ABSTRACT
Background Paediatric attendances to Emergency Departments (EDs) in the UK are increasing, particularly for younger children. Neonates present a challenge due to their non-specific presentations. Community services are under increasing pressure and parents may preferentially bring their children to the ED, even for non-urgent problems. Neonatal attendances have not been extensively studied, but previous reviews have shown many are well, often not requiring specific medical intervention. This study aimed to characterise the presenting features, management and disposition of neonatal attendances to a tertiary Children’s ED (CED).
Methods Retrospective observational review of medical records identified via the ED Electronic database of neonatal attendances (≤28 days) to Bristol Royal Hospital for Children (BRHC) over 12 months (01/01/2016-31/12/2016). Further information was obtained from investigation results, discharge summaries and historical admissions data.
Results Neonatal attendances increased from 655 to 1205 from 2008-2016. The most common presenting complaints were breathing difficulty (18.1%), vomiting (8.3%) and poor feeding (8.2%). The most common diagnoses were ‘no significant medical problem’ (41.9%), bronchiolitis (10.5%) and suspected sepsis (10.0%). Just over 1/3 were admitted (23% inpatient, 12% Short Stay Unit). Median length of stay for inpatients was 2 days. Half of neonatal attendances to the ED had no investigations performed and most (77.7%) needed advice or observation only.
Conclusion Many neonates presenting to the CED were well and discharged with observation only. This suggests not only that there is potential for improved community management but that increased support for community colleagues and new parents is needed. There are also implications for reviewing training in emergency medicine, especially the ability to assess ‘well’ infants and to manage common neonatal problems. Drivers of health policy should consider developing enhanced models of out of hospital care which are acceptable to clinicians and families
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding received
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved as a service evaluation using routinely collected, existing, anonymised data by University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust following assessment against the Health Research Authority Framework
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Raw data available from authors on request