Adherence to Universal Travel Screening in the Emergency Department During Epidemic Ebola Virus Disease

Infection Prevention and Control Implications of Special Pathogens in Children

Special pathogens are broadly defined as highly transmissible organisms capable of causing severe disease in humans. Children's hospital healthcare personnel (HCP) should be prepared to identify patients possibly infected with a special pathogen, isolate the patient to minimize transmission, and inform key infection prevention, clinical, and public health stakeholders. Effective preparedness requires resources and practice with attention to education, policies and procedures, drills and training, and supplies. Successfully preparing for special pathogens is an important measure toward keeping communities, HCP, and patients and families safe in this global age that brings pathogens from across the world to our doorstep.

Development and implementation of a clinical decision support system tool for the evaluation of suspected monkeypox infection

Monkeypox virus was historically rare outside of West and Central Africa until the current 2022 global outbreak, which has required clinicians to be alert to identify individuals with possible monkeypox, institute isolation, and take appropriate next steps in evaluation and management. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS), which have been shown to improve adherence to clinical guidelines, can support frontline clinicians in applying the most current evaluation and management guidance in the setting of an emerging infectious disease outbreak when those guidelines are evolving over time. Here, we describe the rapid development and implementation of a CDSS tool embedded in the electronic health record to guide frontline clinicians in the diagnostic evaluation of monkeypox infection and triage patients with potential monkeypox infection to individualized infectious disease physician review. We also present data on the initial performance of this tool in a large integrated healthcare system.

Triage travel screening in the pediatric emergency department: A cross-sectional analysis to evaluate current use and effectiveness in identifying travel related illness

OBJECTIVES

In 2014 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommended emergency departments (EDs) implement triage travel screening to identify persons at risk for Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). EVD remains rare in the United States, and in practice the triage travel screen serves as a de facto screen for all travel-related illnesses. This study seeks to determine the current use and effectiveness of the triage travel screen to detect travel-related illness in the pediatric ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study of visits across three pediatrics EDs in 2019 in Atlanta, GA. Prevalences of travel-related illnesses were compared between patients with positive and negative travel screens. Patient charts with diagnoses of travel-related illness were then reviewed.

RESULTS

Out of 244,841 patient encounters during the study period, 13 patients with travel-related illness were identified. 5/13 cases of travel-related illness were not diagnosed at the initial ED visit. Of these 5 cases, 2 had correctly negative travel screens (as travel was not within the specified timeframe) and 3 had correctly positive travel screens, but none had a clinician-documented travel history in the ED clinical notes. Of the 8/13 cases that were diagnosed at the initial ED visit, 7/8 had a clinician-documented travel history in the ED note.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the limitations of the current pediatric ED triage travel screen to detect travel-related illness and reinforces the importance of a provider-taken travel history. Strategies to increase provider-administered travel history documentation and revisions to increase triage travel-screen efficacy should be considered.

Travel-screening documentation to enable the "Identify-Isolate-Inform" framework for emerging infectious diseases: It's all in the details

The early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and ongoing efforts for mitigation underscore the importance of universal travel and symptom screening. We analyzed adherence to documentation of travel and symptom screening through a travel navigator tool with clinical decision support to identify patients at risk for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome.

The Utility of a Travel Screen at Triage in Pediatric Emergency Medicine

BACKGROUND

The travel screen was implemented by emergency departments (EDs) across the country in 2014 to detect patients exposed to Ebola early and prevent local outbreaks. It remains part of the triage protocol in many EDs to detect communicable disease from abroad and has become a defacto screen for other travel-related illness. Its utility has not been studied in the pediatric ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of electronic medical records across 3 EDs from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. The screening question reads, "Has the child or a close contact of the child traveled outside the United States in the past 21 days?" A follow-up question requesting travel details is included for positive screens. We compared length of stay, return-visit rates, and differences in disposition between patients with positive and negative travel screens using generalized linear regression. Matched regression estimates, 95% confidence intervals, and P values were reported.

RESULTS

The study population included 152,945 patients with a total of 322,229 encounters in 2016, of which 232,787 encounters had a travel screen documented during triage. There were 2258 patient encounters that had positive travel screens. Only 201 (8.9%) of these encounters had further description of the travel in the comments box. The odds of hospital admission for patients with positive travel screens were 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.01; P < 0.001) times the odds of hospital admission for patients screened negative. The significance of this finding was largely driven by general hospital admission. Other metrics did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a positive travel screen was mildly predictive of inpatient admission, information is not available to providers about travel-related risk. Recent literature suggests integrating a travel history with presenting symptoms and region of travel and could produce a more specific travel screen. A revised travel screen should be implemented and studied in the pediatric ED.