Study objectives were to evaluate the 1-hour decision point for discharge or admission for acute asthma; to compare this decision point to the admission recommendations of the Expert Panel Report 2 (EPR-2) guidelines; to develop a model for predicting need for admission in acute asthma. The design used was a prospective preinterventional and postinterventional comparison. The setting was a university hospital emergency department. Participants included 50 patients seeking care for acute asthma. Patients received standard therapy and were randomized to receive albuterol by nebulizer or metered-dose inhaler with spacer every 20 minutes up to 2 hours. Symptoms, physical examination, spirometry, pulsus paradoxus, medication use, and outcome were evaluated. Based on clinical judgment, the attending physician decided to admit or discharge after 1 hour of therapy. Outcome was compared to the EPR-2 guidelines. Post hoc statistical analyses examined predictors of the need for admission from which a prediction model was developed. Maximal accuracy of the admit versus discharge decision occurred at 1 hour of therapy. Using FEV(1) alone as an outcome predictor yielded suboptimal performance. FEV(1) at 1 hour plus ability to lie flat without dyspnea were the best indicators of response and outcome. A model predictive of the need for admission was developed. It performed better (P =.0054) than the admission algorithm of the EPR-2 guidelines. The decision to admit or discharge acute asthmatics from the ED can be made at 1 hour of therapy. No absolute value of peak flow or FEV(1) reliably predicts need for hospital admission. The EPR-2 guideline thresholds for admission are barely adequate as outcome predictors. A clinical model is proposed that may allow more accurate outcome prediction.

BACKGROUND: The relative performance of asthma care quality measures has not been evaluated in Medicaid populations. METHODS: Using complete claims and pharmaceutical data for 19,076 patients with persistent asthma (based on Health Effectiveness and Data Information Set criteria) in five Medicaid populations, we compared the following two measures of asthma care quality: filling prescriptions for controller asthma medications within 1 year and the ratio of controller medication to the total number of asthma medication prescriptions filled within 1 year. We calculated whether meeting each quality measure was associated with decreased odds of emergency department (ED) treatment episodes. We then compared the odds ratios, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and deviances between models, using each measure to predict ED utilization in Medicaid populations. RESULTS: Although meeting each measure was associated with lower odds of ED utilization, this decrease was larger if the controller asthma medication measure was met rather than the ratio measure. Additionally, models using the controller medication measure had greater areas under the ROC curve and smaller deviances than models using the ratio measure. CONCLUSIONS: Both administrative measures of asthma care quality were associated with lower odds of ED utilization. The controller medication measure of asthma care quality may be better than the ratio measure in relation to emergency asthma care utilization by Medicaid beneficiaries.