Discussion
This work is the first French study showing that the standardisation of bronchiolitis inpatient management allowed for a reduction in unnecessary testing and treatments. One year after the implementation of these guidelines, we noticed significant reductions in the use of CXR, inflammatory blood tests, antibiotics, corticosteroids and chest physiotherapy, without a discernible increase in morbidity. Thus, the ABCs for inpatients care in bronchiolitis proposed by Ralston et al were reached.9
Even though our study was monocentric, the characteristics of our population are similar to those of other published studies, particularly three recent studies conducted in other French university hospitals.6–8 In the study of Carsin et al,6 the rates of nasopharyngeal viral swabs, inflammatory blood tests and intravenous fluid replacements were 98%, 57% and 54%, respectively. Gajdos et al
8 reported a 14% rate for salbutamol use, 10% for corticosteroids and 28% for antibiotics. The current overinvestigation and an overtreatment of infants hospitalised with bronchiolitis in France is not without potential for causing harm. Chest physiotherapy had no significant effect on time to recovery21 but increased the frequency of vomiting and transitory respiratory destabilisation in the work of Gadjos et al.8
There were no significant differences between the baseline characteristics of the two periods for the populations, except in terms of their history of prematurity. For this characteristic, the rate for period 1 of 12% was similar to the finding in other studies with rates between 8.7% and 16%.6 17 However, this difference appeared to have a minor impact on our study’s outcomes. Indeed, in the subgroup analysis that excluded patients with a history of prematurity, all of the statistically significant differences in the general outcomes analysis remained significant. This suggests that the observed improvement is due to the implementation of the guidelines rather than the changes in the typology of patients. We did not observe any significantly adverse effects of the HUGO bronchiolitis guidelines on mortality, ICU transfers or readmission rates at 7 days, but this could be due to the fact that our study lacked the power to adequately evaluate this. However, previously published studies involving larger populations that evaluated the impact of similar bronchiolitis guidelines did not report any deleterious effects on morbidity.11 18 19
Concerning CXR, the NICE,2 the AAP3 and the CPS bronchiolitis guidelines4 reaffirm that current evidence does not support its routine use. It should be reserved for cases of ICU admission or signs of an airway complication such as pneumothorax. Indeed, the rate of differential diagnoses made thanks to CXR in bronchiolitis was between 0.4% and 0.8% in recent studies,6 22 whereas several studies suggest that CXR use increases the prescription of antibiotics.22–24 Schuh et al
22 showed the rate of infants identified for antibiotics preradiography was 2.6% and became 15% postradiography. Similarly, a French study showed 14% of the children without CXR received antibiotics versus 39% of those with CXR.23 Moreover, Carsin et al reported only 3.6% of the routinely performed CXR changed bronchiolitis inpatient management,6 almost all by antibiotic introduction.
Our results also suggest that reducing unnecessary care provided benefits in terms of LOS and was cost saving. AAP guidelines implementations were followed by reduction of the LOS from 2.3 to 1.8 days in Mittal’s study19 and from 2.0 to 1.8 day in Ralston’s study.25 In our pragmatic study, the LOS remained stable at 2.0 days. However, it should be kept in mind that those studies excluded patients who had been transferred to the ICU or who had comorbidities. Moreover, in France, a national PMSI analysis of 29 784 children hospitalised for bronchiolitis showed a median LOS of 3.0 days.1 Additionally, the mean LOS observed in the recent multicentric French trial on hypertonic saline nebulisation was 3.8 days.26 Moreover, the implementation of HUGO guidelines allowed for little cost savings of €54.25 per patient. By comparison, Akenroye et al
11 reported a mean cost per patient reduced by $197.
In regard to supportive care, the downward trend of supplemental oxygen use that was close to significance (p=0.058). It could be improved by reassessing the oxygen discontinuation criteria and promoting intermittent pulse oximetry, as showed in two recent randomised trials.16 27
In comparison with the results of other quality improvement studies, such as those reported in Ralston’s systematic review,18 we encountered better reduction rates for unnecessary diagnostic tests and treatments. This level of success is probably linked to the design of our intervention, as it was a voluntary local collaborative work. A large team of NUH medical staff (eg, paediatricians, paediatric pulmonologists and emergency physicians) were involved in generating the HUGO guidelines and in their presentation in interprofessional team meetings. Having a large team engagement led by a site champion is one of the major determinants of success for a bronchiolitis quality improvement programme, as found by Ralston et al in their multicentric study.25 Moreover, the collaborative nature of the work helps to overcome clinical practice inertia and to promote evidence-based medicine.28
The main limitation of this study was its retrospective, monocentric before versus after design. In order to limit bias, we choose to evaluate the same unit during the three major bronchiolitis epidemic weeks. It may have introduced bias: performance during those times may be consistently better or worse than it might be at another time. However, the bias was the same for the two inclusion periods. We hypothesised that the workload is similar year-over-year during those busy weeks. There was no major change in the way the unit was run, senior medical staff or nurse teams between the two periods. We made the choice of a composite outcome associating treatment and diagnostic test; this outcome could appear heterogeneous. Nevertheless, treatment and diagnostic testing were the two main resources that tend to be misused in bronchiolitis. Having a composite outcome allowed us to capture the overall impact of the HUGO guidelines. Moreover, the use of each treatment and diagnostic test not routinely recommended by the guidelines were evaluated separately too, and we showed a clinically and statistically significant reduction of most of the inadequate tests or treatments.
In conclusion, we showed that reduction in the overuse of unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic measure was possible in France. Sustainability and generalisability of the observed improvement are still to be evaluated. This study was a first step to convince the French paediatricians still reluctant to streamline their practices before the upcoming national French bronchiolitis guidelines.