Akshata Hopkins, MD, FAAP

As we embark on Choosing Wisely, pediatric hospitalists gathered to attend this fruitful discussion on not only how to change our way of thinking but also how to feed it forward to our trainees. The barriers to promoting and teaching high value care are plenty and essentially universal to academic and community sites: we have had no formal teaching, there is cultural resistance and there is lack of transparency on costs and charges.

Perhaps the questions we should be asking ourselves, our trainees and our families are:

• Instead of “What’s the matter?” ask “What matters?”
• Instead of asking “Will that test change our management?” ask “Does that test benefit the patient? What are the harms of the test?”

Thinking about effects of tests downstream, the “testing cascade” can be a great mental exercise for the higher-level learner to understand the value, the unknowns we face in our daily decisions and simultaneously improving our understanding of best practices.

A toolkit was provided to help bring back resources and methods to teach high value care in morning report/ case conference settings, bedside teaching and family discussions.

One point is clear though—there is still a long way to go to move the pendulum to the side of value based practice and teaching. There is still controversy on how and whether cost should be discussed with the family. Cost is more than just monetary values—family anxiety and patient harm may resonate more with families as we perfect our skills in shared decision making.

This serves as an exciting time to unite and better our understanding on why we do what we do and deliberately think about downstream effects. High value care curriculum for medical students, residents, fellows and even faculty is an area ripe for further educational and clinical research.

When asking for the Pediatric Value Meal, this is one where I will not Super size it!

Dr. Akshata Hopkins, MD FAAP, is an academic hospitalist at Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, St. Petersburg, Fla.

As we embark on Choosing Wisely, pediatric hospitalists gathered to attend this fruitful discussion on not only how to change our way of thinking but also how to feed it forward to our trainees. The barriers to promoting and teaching high value care are plenty and essentially universal to academic and community sites: we have had no formal teaching, there is cultural resistance and there is lack of transparency on costs and charges.

Perhaps the questions we should be asking ourselves, our trainees and our families are:

• Instead of “What’s the matter?” ask “What matters?”
• Instead of asking “Will that test change our management?” ask “Does that test benefit the patient? What are the harms of the test?”

Thinking about effects of tests downstream, the “testing cascade” can be a great mental exercise for the higher-level learner to understand the value, the unknowns we face in our daily decisions and simultaneously improving our understanding of best practices.

A toolkit was provided to help bring back resources and methods to teach high value care in morning report/ case conference settings, bedside teaching and family discussions.

One point is clear though—there is still a long way to go to move the pendulum to the side of value based practice and teaching. There is still controversy on how and whether cost should be discussed with the family. Cost is more than just monetary values—family anxiety and patient harm may resonate more with families as we perfect our skills in shared decision making.

This serves as an exciting time to unite and better our understanding on why we do what we do and deliberately think about downstream effects. High value care curriculum for medical students, residents, fellows and even faculty is an area ripe for further educational and clinical research.

When asking for the Pediatric Value Meal, this is one where I will not Super size it!

Dr. Akshata Hopkins, MD FAAP, is an academic hospitalist at Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, St. Petersburg, Fla.

As we embark on Choosing Wisely, pediatric hospitalists gathered to attend this fruitful discussion on not only how to change our way of thinking but also how to feed it forward to our trainees. The barriers to promoting and teaching high value care are plenty and essentially universal to academic and community sites: we have had no formal teaching, there is cultural resistance and there is lack of transparency on costs and charges.

Perhaps the questions we should be asking ourselves, our trainees and our families are:

• Instead of “What’s the matter?” ask “What matters?”
• Instead of asking “Will that test change our management?” ask “Does that test benefit the patient? What are the harms of the test?”

Thinking about effects of tests downstream, the “testing cascade” can be a great mental exercise for the higher-level learner to understand the value, the unknowns we face in our daily decisions and simultaneously improving our understanding of best practices.

A toolkit was provided to help bring back resources and methods to teach high value care in morning report/ case conference settings, bedside teaching and family discussions.

One point is clear though—there is still a long way to go to move the pendulum to the side of value based practice and teaching. There is still controversy on how and whether cost should be discussed with the family. Cost is more than just monetary values—family anxiety and patient harm may resonate more with families as we perfect our skills in shared decision making.

This serves as an exciting time to unite and better our understanding on why we do what we do and deliberately think about downstream effects. High value care curriculum for medical students, residents, fellows and even faculty is an area ripe for further educational and clinical research.

When asking for the Pediatric Value Meal, this is one where I will not Super size it!

Dr. Akshata Hopkins, MD FAAP, is an academic hospitalist at Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, St. Petersburg, Fla.

Drs. Pate and Engel presented a hot topic in pediatric hospital medicine, sparking fruitful conversation about current evidence, identified gaps, and controversies regarding the management of febrile infants with urinary tract infections. After the American Academy of Pediatrics published the updated clinical guideline in 2011, controversies about radioimaging, duration of treatment, and pursuit of laboratory evaluations arose. These controversies continue today, and value and gold standard tests are now being questioned. Should urine culture truly be the gold standard to define a UTI?

The current evidence (applying to 2 month-2 years) in a nutshell includes:

• Oral and parental antibiotics are equally efficacious,
• Duration of treatment is a wide range of 7-14 days,
• Positive UA indicating inflammation/infection and a culture >50,000 uropathogens/ml is needed to make the diagnosis, and
• Febrile infants with first UTI should get a renal ultrasound; only if the ultrasound is abnormal should patients get a Voiding Cystourethrogram (VCUG).

Since the guideline was published in 2011, there has been continued disagreement between pediatricians and pediatric urologists. When thinking about high-value care, what value is added by doing the renal ultrasound and/or VCUG? The research over the last couple of years shows that although there is concern that UTIs lead to renal scarring and chronic kidney disease, in the absence of structural kidney abnormalities, recurrent UTIs cause at most 0.3% of chronic kidney disease. The takehome point from the 2014 RIVUR study is:

• The treatment group had significantly higher rates of resistance organisms (63% ppx 19% placebo).
• The NNT with prophylaxis in children with VUR is 9 children for 2 years to prevent 1 UTI, or 6570 days of antibiotics to prevent one 7-14 day course.

The RIVUR study raised more questions:

• Is there a difference in outcome if a child had concurrent bacteremia?

  • There is no significant difference in clinical presentation between an isolated UTI and an infant with bacteremia. Those patients with bacteremia received longer duration of parenteral antibiotics, but the number of days were highly variable and outcomes were excellent overall regardless.

• How accurate is UA in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections in infants less than 3 months of age?

  • Urinalysis in those infants

• Could inflammatory markers accurately identify infants at high risk for more severe disease?

  • Not really.

Guidelines were reviewed, controversies were discussed, and questions were proposed. The session ended with tools to take home to help change hospital practice, and quality-UTI projects metrics were shared, as this is the next AAP VIP project about to launch.

Key Takeaways:

• The guidelines represent a living and dynamic tool that integrates the best evidence we have.
• There is new research evolving and lessons to be learned.

Dr. Hopkins is an academic pediatric hospitalist and instructor at All Children's Hospital Johns Hopkins Medicine, St. Petersburg, Fla.​

Drs. Pate and Engel presented a hot topic in pediatric hospital medicine, sparking fruitful conversation about current evidence, identified gaps, and controversies regarding the management of febrile infants with urinary tract infections. After the American Academy of Pediatrics published the updated clinical guideline in 2011, controversies about radioimaging, duration of treatment, and pursuit of laboratory evaluations arose. These controversies continue today, and value and gold standard tests are now being questioned. Should urine culture truly be the gold standard to define a UTI?

The current evidence (applying to 2 month-2 years) in a nutshell includes:

• Oral and parental antibiotics are equally efficacious,
• Duration of treatment is a wide range of 7-14 days,
• Positive UA indicating inflammation/infection and a culture >50,000 uropathogens/ml is needed to make the diagnosis, and
• Febrile infants with first UTI should get a renal ultrasound; only if the ultrasound is abnormal should patients get a Voiding Cystourethrogram (VCUG).

Since the guideline was published in 2011, there has been continued disagreement between pediatricians and pediatric urologists. When thinking about high-value care, what value is added by doing the renal ultrasound and/or VCUG? The research over the last couple of years shows that although there is concern that UTIs lead to renal scarring and chronic kidney disease, in the absence of structural kidney abnormalities, recurrent UTIs cause at most 0.3% of chronic kidney disease. The takehome point from the 2014 RIVUR study is:

• The treatment group had significantly higher rates of resistance organisms (63% ppx 19% placebo).
• The NNT with prophylaxis in children with VUR is 9 children for 2 years to prevent 1 UTI, or 6570 days of antibiotics to prevent one 7-14 day course.

The RIVUR study raised more questions:

• Is there a difference in outcome if a child had concurrent bacteremia?

  • There is no significant difference in clinical presentation between an isolated UTI and an infant with bacteremia. Those patients with bacteremia received longer duration of parenteral antibiotics, but the number of days were highly variable and outcomes were excellent overall regardless.

• How accurate is UA in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections in infants less than 3 months of age?

  • Urinalysis in those infants

• Could inflammatory markers accurately identify infants at high risk for more severe disease?

  • Not really.

Guidelines were reviewed, controversies were discussed, and questions were proposed. The session ended with tools to take home to help change hospital practice, and quality-UTI projects metrics were shared, as this is the next AAP VIP project about to launch.

Key Takeaways:

• The guidelines represent a living and dynamic tool that integrates the best evidence we have.
• There is new research evolving and lessons to be learned.

Dr. Hopkins is an academic pediatric hospitalist and instructor at All Children's Hospital Johns Hopkins Medicine, St. Petersburg, Fla.​

Drs. Pate and Engel presented a hot topic in pediatric hospital medicine, sparking fruitful conversation about current evidence, identified gaps, and controversies regarding the management of febrile infants with urinary tract infections. After the American Academy of Pediatrics published the updated clinical guideline in 2011, controversies about radioimaging, duration of treatment, and pursuit of laboratory evaluations arose. These controversies continue today, and value and gold standard tests are now being questioned. Should urine culture truly be the gold standard to define a UTI?

The current evidence (applying to 2 month-2 years) in a nutshell includes:

• Oral and parental antibiotics are equally efficacious,
• Duration of treatment is a wide range of 7-14 days,
• Positive UA indicating inflammation/infection and a culture >50,000 uropathogens/ml is needed to make the diagnosis, and
• Febrile infants with first UTI should get a renal ultrasound; only if the ultrasound is abnormal should patients get a Voiding Cystourethrogram (VCUG).

Since the guideline was published in 2011, there has been continued disagreement between pediatricians and pediatric urologists. When thinking about high-value care, what value is added by doing the renal ultrasound and/or VCUG? The research over the last couple of years shows that although there is concern that UTIs lead to renal scarring and chronic kidney disease, in the absence of structural kidney abnormalities, recurrent UTIs cause at most 0.3% of chronic kidney disease. The takehome point from the 2014 RIVUR study is:

• The treatment group had significantly higher rates of resistance organisms (63% ppx 19% placebo).
• The NNT with prophylaxis in children with VUR is 9 children for 2 years to prevent 1 UTI, or 6570 days of antibiotics to prevent one 7-14 day course.

The RIVUR study raised more questions:

• Is there a difference in outcome if a child had concurrent bacteremia?

  • There is no significant difference in clinical presentation between an isolated UTI and an infant with bacteremia. Those patients with bacteremia received longer duration of parenteral antibiotics, but the number of days were highly variable and outcomes were excellent overall regardless.

• How accurate is UA in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections in infants less than 3 months of age?

  • Urinalysis in those infants

• Could inflammatory markers accurately identify infants at high risk for more severe disease?

  • Not really.

Guidelines were reviewed, controversies were discussed, and questions were proposed. The session ended with tools to take home to help change hospital practice, and quality-UTI projects metrics were shared, as this is the next AAP VIP project about to launch.

Key Takeaways:

• The guidelines represent a living and dynamic tool that integrates the best evidence we have.
• There is new research evolving and lessons to be learned.

Dr. Hopkins is an academic pediatric hospitalist and instructor at All Children's Hospital Johns Hopkins Medicine, St. Petersburg, Fla.​