Reduction of Pediatric Gastrostomy Tube Healthcare Utilization and Socioeconomic Disparities: Longitudinal Benefits of Quality Improvement

Background: Disparities in emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrostomy (G-) tube placement were previously demonstrated at our children's hospital. We aimed to reduce postoperative G-tube dislodgements and ED visits with a particular focus on socially vulnerable children.

Methods: Our improvement team implemented a G-tube care bundle (6/2018-9/2019) targeting caregiver preparedness and standardizing care in the pre-, intra-, and post-operative periods. Patients who had G tubes placed between 1/2011-8/2022 were categorized to either pre- or post-intervention groups. Primary outcomes were tracked prospectively. National area deprivation index (ADI) was assigned retrospectively and employed to evaluate social risk. Univariate comparisons were made between pre- and post-intervention groups, and between High ADI (≥80) and Low ADI (<80) subgroups in both pre- and post- intervention periods. We used statistical process control methods to further analyze change over time.

Results: 396 children were included (188 pre-intervention, 208 post-intervention). The post-intervention cohort demonstrated a lower rate of outpatient dislodgement at 90 days following G-tube placement (21.3 % vs 10.1 %, p = 0.002) and fewer G-tube-related ED visits per G-tube placed within one year of placement (mean 0.8 visits vs 0.6 visits, p = 0.012). Pre-intervention, children from high ADI neighborhoods had significantly greater healthcare utilization compared to those from lower ADI neighborhoods. Post-intervention, previously statistically significant disparities were no longer present. Outpatient G-tube dislodgements within 90 days were particularly mitigated.

Conclusions: A longstanding quality improvement initiative has led to sustained reductions in overall G-tube-related health care utilization. Care standardization and improvement may mitigate outcome disparities related to socioeconomic advantage.

Type of study: Retrospective Comparative Study and Prospective Quality Improvement.

Level of evidence: Level III.