Objective: Appropriate delivery of Emergency Department (ED) treatment to children with acute asthma requires clinician assessment of acute asthma severity. Various clinical scoring instruments exist to standardize assessment of acute asthma severity in the ED, but their selection remains arbitrary due to few published direct comparisons of their properties. Our objective was to test the feasibility of directly comparing properties of multiple scoring instruments in a pediatric ED.
Methods: Using a novel approach supported by a composite data collection form, clinicians categorized elements of five scoring instruments before and after initial treatment for 48 patients 2-18 years of age with acute asthma seen at the ED of a tertiary care pediatric hospital ED from August to December 2014. Scoring instruments were compared for inter-rater reliability between clinician types and their ability to predict hospitalization.
Results: Inter-rater reliability between clinician types was not different between instruments at any point and was lower (weighted kappa range 0.21-0.55) than values reported elsewhere. Predictive ability of most instruments for hospitalization was higher after treatment than before treatment (p < 0.05) and may vary between instruments after treatment (p = 0.054).
Conclusions: We demonstrate the feasibility of comparing multiple clinical scoring instruments simultaneously in ED clinical practice. Scoring instruments had higher predictive ability for hospitalization after treatment than before treatment and may differ in their predictive ability after initial treatment. Definitive conclusions about the best instrument or meaningful comparison between instruments will require a study with a larger sample size.
Keywords: Asthma; child; decision making; emergency service (hospital); hospitalization; validation studies.