St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. September 9, 2014 Final Report

Similar documents
Running head: SUNBURN AND SUN EXPOSURE 1. Summer Sunburn and Sun Exposure Among US Youths Ages 11 to 18: National Prevalence and Associated Factors

Disclosures. Introduction 4/3/2015. Patterns of Treatment of Accidental Genital Trauma in Girls. Julie Strickland MD MPH:

Patterns of HIV testing among Ontario physicians, 2006

Determining Whether or Not Dental Students Will Immediately Enter Private Practice Upon Graduation. Raymond A. Kuthy Sarah E.

Figure S1. Flowchart of sample included in the analysis.

Education Options for Children with Autism

Part 8 Logistic Regression

MAKING THE NSQIP PARTICIPANT USE DATA FILE (PUF) WORK FOR YOU

Biostatistics II

An SMS and IVR Intervention Improves Medication Adherence among Adults with T2DM and Low SES

Risk Factors Predicting Mortality in Spinal Cord Injury in Nigeria

Help-seeking behaviour for emotional or behavioural problems. among Australian adolescents: the role of socio-demographic

Is Hospital Admission Useful for Syncope Patients? Preliminary Results of a Multicenter Cohort

Clinical Study Synopsis

A Population-Based Study on the Uptake and Utilization of Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) for Brain Metastasis in Nova Scotia

Chapter 14: More Powerful Statistical Methods

ONLINE DATA SUPPLEMENT - ASTHMA INTERVENTION PROGRAM PREVENTS READMISSIONS IN HIGH HEALTHCARE UTILIZERS

Emily Reid M. Cl. Sc. (Aud) Candidate School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, U.W.O.

Using PROMIS to Assess Quality of Life for Children with Brain Tumors

diagnosis and initial treatment at one of the 27 collaborating CCSS institutions;

GSK Medicine: Study Number: Title: Rationale: Study Period: Objectives: Indication: Study Investigators/Centers: Research Methods: Data Source

The University of Tennessee Hospice and Palliative Care Fellowship Program

Applications. DSC 410/510 Multivariate Statistical Methods. Discriminating Two Groups. What is Discriminant Analysis

Predictors of drug sensitive tuberculosis treatment outcomes among hospitalised

Clinical Study Synopsis

Senior Vice President, Medical Affairs and Health Outcomes, 150 South Saunders Road, Lake Forest, IL 60045, Horizon Pharma USA, Inc, USA

3rd IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment. Poster Number Abstract #

4/1/ Annual Training Survey Issues Committee. Katherine Hekman, MD PhD McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University 3 rd Year Resident

Sample Evaluation Plan. Indicator 4.1.1

Template 1 for summarising studies addressing prognostic questions

Multidisciplinary Quality of Life Intervention for Men with Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer

43rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) A Cutrell, J Hernandez, M Edwards, J Fleming, W Powell, T Scott

TYPES OF DEPRESSION: MAJOR, CHRONIC, MANIC, AND MORE TYPES. (PDF) SEVERE DEPRESSION FOLLOWING á-interferon USAGE IN A

Health-Related Quality of Life in Children with Cancer

Logistic Regression Predicting the Chances of Coronary Heart Disease. Multivariate Solutions

The Effect of Transition Clinics on Knowledge of Diagnosis and Perception of Risk in Young Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer

10/18/2016. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition 1. Meet Dr. Saulnier. Bio. Celine A. Saulnier, PhD Vineland-3 Author

Occupational Therapy (OTHR)

Clinical Characteristics of Intravenous PEG-Asparaginase Hypersensitivity Reactions in Patients Undergoing Treatment for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

a newsletter detailing appropriate indications of IV PPI was sent to physicians;

Brown University Department of Emergency Medicine Providence, RI

American Board of Naturopathic Pediatrics Board Certification Application

Study No.: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centers: Indication: Treatment: Objective: Primary Outcome/Efficacy Variable:

Competent Pain Management for Older Patients With Cancer

HIV risk associated with injection drug use in Houston, Texas 2009: A Latent Class Analysis

PRINCESS MARGARET CANCER CENTRE CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Functional Assessment of Social Skills Deficits

APOSW The Association of Pediatric Oncology Social Workers Standards of Practice

ClinicalTrials.gov "Basic Results" Data Element Definitions (DRAFT)

Impact of Florida s Medicaid Reform on Recipients of Mental Health Services

Zhao Y Y et al. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work

Center for Autism and Related Disabilities 16 th Annual Autism Conference

Statistics as a Tool. A set of tools for collecting, organizing, presenting and analyzing numerical facts or observations.

PEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)

Transitional Doctor of Physical Therapy Pediatric Science

HCBS Autism Waiver Individualized Behavioral Program/Plan of Care Section I - Demographics

Designing an Electronic Medical Record-based Clinical Decision Support Tool to Improve CVD Screening in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

METHODS RESULTS. Supported by funding from Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC

SBIRT IOWA. Iowa Army National Guard THE IOWA CONSORTIUM FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE RESEARCH AND EVALUATION. Iowa Army National Guard

Use of an mhealth Intervention to Improve HIV Treatment and Engagement in HIV Care among Recently Incarcerated Persons in Washington, DC

Impact of an Interactive Online Nursing Educational Module on Insulin Errors in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients

Predictors of Cigarette Smoking Behavior Among Military University Students in Taiwan. Wang, Kwua-Yun; Yang, Chia-Chen

Transitional Doctor of Physical Therapy Pediatric Science

Can Animals Experience Emotions? Model Diagnostics Demographic variable Companion Animal. Deviance

Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Study Proposal: Male Health Questionnaire (MHQ) November 6, 2012

HIV/AIDS CLINICAL CARE QUALITY MANAGEMENT CHART REVIEW CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVED IMMUNOLOGIC STATUS

Enhancing Quality of Life for Cancer Survivors in South Dakota. Outcomes from the South Dakota Cancer Survivorship Program

Introduction ORIGINAL RESEARCH

An Empirical Assessment of Bivariate Methods for Meta-analysis of Test Accuracy

SAMPLE. Conners 3 Comparative Report. By C. Keith Conners, Ph.D.

An Analysis of Prescribing of Methylphenidate Hydrochloride in QRESEARCH

Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Study Proposal: Male Health Questionnaire (MHQ) and CED February 2015

Survey of Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use (SDD) among young people in England, Andrew Bryant

Sociodemographic and Clinical Predictors of Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Predictors of cardiac allograft vasculopathy in pediatric heart transplant recipients

NIH Public Access Author Manuscript Prev Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 June 05.

Pediatric Cochlear Implantation: Variation in Income, Race, Payer, and Charges Across Five States

Autism Spectrum Disorders Teacher License (proposed): Minnesota model for teacher preparation

Title: Dengue Score: a proposed diagnostic predictor of pleural effusion and/or ascites in adult with dengue infection

Getting the Diagnosis of Fragile X Syndrome

Review of Workflow NRG (RTOG) 1308: Phase III Randomized Trial Comparing Overall Survival after Photon versus Proton Chemoradiation Therapy for

Final Report of Activity February 21 st, 2006 to April 30 th, 2006 CHEO Grant 052

NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell Medical Center Division of Dentistry, General Dentistry Program Goals and Objectives

Update on Pediatric Brain Tumors

TITLE: Effect of Reminder Telephone Calls on Mammography Compliance in High Risk

Study No.: Title: Rationale: Phase: Study Period: Study Design: Centers: Indication: Treatment: Objective: Primary Outcome/Efficacy Variable:

Deborah Kacanek, Konstantia Angelidou, Paige L. Williams, Miriam Chernoff, Kenneth Gadow, Sharon Nachman, The IMPAACT P1055 Study Team

Victoria YY Xu PGY-3 Internal Medicine University of Toronto. Supervisor: Dr. Camilla Wong

2017 American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. All rights reserved.

The availability and cost are obstacles to using pvl in monitoring HIV treatment outcomes in resource-constrained settings

The Participant will be able to: All Better!: Pediatric Adenotonsillectomy Pain Management

Selecting the Right Data Analysis Technique

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE Centre for Clinical Practice SCOPE

What Are Your Odds? : An Interactive Web Application to Visualize Health Outcomes

Managing Older Patients With Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma

Risk-Assessment Instruments for Pain Populations

Evaluating the quality of psychosocial care in outpatient medical oncology settings using performance indicators

Citrus Health Network, Inc. Post-Doctoral Residency Program Application

A Prospective Comparison of Two Commercially Available Hospital Admission Risk Scores

Transcription:

The Impact of a Play-Based Procedural Preparation and Support Intervention for Children Undergoing Cranial Radiation for Treatment of a Central Nervous System Tumor St. Jude Children s Research Hospital September 9, 2014 Final Report Primary PI: Shawna Grissom, MS, CCLS, CEIM Belinda Mandrell, PhD, RN Emily Browne, DNP, RN, CPNP Jessika Boles, MEd, CCLS Katherine Bailey, MS, CCLS Kathryn Cantrell, MA, CCLS Amy Kennedy, CCLS Cindy Lekhy, MHA Ying Yuan, PhD PI Contact: St. Jude Children's Research Hospital 262 Danny Thomas Place, Mail Stop 121 Memphis, TN 38105 shawna.grissom@stjude.org Phone: (901)595-6250 Fax: (901)595-2690 www.stjude.org Research Question: Does a child life play-based procedural preparation and support intervention have an economic impact on the cost of radiation therapy delivery in children with a central nervous system tumor. Time Frame: January 1, 2014 July 15, 2014

The St. Jude Children s Research Hospital child life program has a long history of providing play-based procedural preparation and support interventions to patients undergoing cranial radiation for treatment of central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Such procedural preparation and interventions may decrease the need for sedation during cranial radiation, eliminating the risk of sedation related side effects and health care cost. Study Objectives 1. Assess the relationship between a child life play-based procedural preparation and support intervention and the ability of young children (5-12 years) with CNS tumors to undergo cranial radiation without anesthesia. 2. Assess the economic impact of a child life play-based procedural preparation and support intervention and the child s ability to undergo consecutive days of cranial radiation without anesthesia compared to those requiring anesthesia. Study Questions 1. Does the implementation of a play-based procedural preparation and support intervention by child life specialists decrease the use of sedation and anesthesia among children (5-12 years) with CNS tumors receiving cranial radiation? 2. Does the implementation of a play-based procedural preparation and support intervention by child life specialists have an economic impact on healthcare costs among children (5-12 years) with CNS tumors receiving cranial radiation? In January 2014, a retrospective review of two correlated data sources was completed and included the electronic medical record and narrative -based child life electronic documentation from the dates of October 15, 2009 to December 31, 2013. One hundred sixty-four (164) patients, age 5-12 years were identified as having been diagnosed with a CNS tumor and referred for cranial radiation therapy. Those with pre-existing developmental delays, neurocognitive conditions, or posterior fossa syndrome were excluded from analysis, leaving a total of 129 eligible patient records for examination. After potential participants were identified, Institutional Review Board review was submitted and approved. Of the 129 identified patients, 116 received child life services that included playbased procedural preparation and support interventions with the intervention documented in the electronic medical record or in an internal productivity statistics database maintained by the child life program director. Measures Child life electronic documentation and statistics, as well as clinical documentation from radiation oncology and anesthesia, were available for all participants. In order to facilitate this collection, a data abstraction instrument named the Outcome Measures Form was designed to systematically categorize demographic data, sedation patterns and child life interventions among the study participants (Appendix A). The Outcome Measures Form was completed for each individual patient record, and then was coded and entered systematically into a comprehensive database. Demographic data included the child s gender, age, tumor location (infratentorial, supratentorial), position during radiation treatment (supine, prone) total radiation treatment dose, average minutes of daily radiation treatment, the number of days over which radiation was administered, and the need for sedation during radiation treatment (all, partial, none). Play-based procedural support and intervention data during radiation treatment

included the number of child life sessions and the average duration of each session. Three investigators separately reviewed each participant s medical record in order to ensure inter-rater reliability. Economic data was provided by the institutional financial services. The total cost of treatment was estimated by averaging the cost of the total number of treatments with sedation and the total without sedation. The average cost of one treatment with sedation was $5,233.63 and $1,811.31 without sedation. These average costs are based on staff salaries, supplies and services. The total cost of child life intervention was estimated by the total time spent in all child life interventions. The cost of a 45 minute child life intervention session was $18.95 based on supplies and salary. Statistical Analyses Patient characteristics were summarized by descriptive statistics. Univariate Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) regression models were applied to examine the consideration of the following covariates: age at time of treatment, gender, tumor location (infratentorial, supratentorial), patient position during treatment (supine, prone), number of intervention sessions, and the total duration of all intervention sessions (minutes). The criterion of p<0.1 was used to select variables from the univariate model to include in a multivariable model. The multivariate model included main effects only (i.e. no interaction terms). Given the high correlation between the number of intervention sessions and the duration of all sessions; they were evaluated separately in multivariate models. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the combined total cost of treatment and intervention between sedation groups. Data were analyzed separately for the total population and for patients that received intervention only. A two-sided significance level of p<0.05 was used for all statistical tests. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS Version 9.3. Results One hundred sixteen (116) patients that received child life intervention were included in the analysis. Table 1 details the characteristics for the total population. The mean age at the time of radiation was 8.1 years (range 5 to 12.8 years), 57% male, 63% of the patient tumors were infratentorial and 64% were in the supine position during treatment. Patients that received the child life intervention averaged 4.5 sessions, with all sessions averaging a total duration of 210.4 minutes. Impact of Child Life Intervention and Sedation The multivariate model for predictors of sedation use among patients who received the child life intervention included age at the time of treatment, tumor location, and total number of intervention sessions and the total duration of all intervention sessions. To determine the impact of the number of sessions and the impact of minutes, the multivariate models included each covariate separately. In the number of sessions model, age at the time of treatment and the total number of child life intervention sessions were positively associated with the use of sedation after adjustment for all covariates (Table 2). A one-year increase in age was associated with significantly higher odds of receiving cranial radiation without sedation over full sedation (OR: 3.001; 95% CI: 1.967-4.577; p<0.0001) and significantly higher odds of receiving cranial radiation with partial sedation over full sedation (OR: 2.015; 95% CI: 1.267-3.204; p=0.0031) after adjustment for tumor location and number of intervention sessions. Each additional intervention session was associated with a 23.3% increase in the odds of receiving cranial radiation with partial sedation over full sedation after adjustment for age and tumor location (OR: 1.233; 95% CI: 1.007-1.511; p=0.0430). The total duration in minutes of the child life session was included in a separate multivariate model. Age at the time of treatment and the total duration in minutes were positively associated with sedation use after adjustment

for all covariates in the model. A one-year increase in age was associated with significantly higher odds of receiving cranial radiation without sedation over full sedation (OR: 2.953; 95% CI: 1.935-4.508; p<0.0001) and significantly higher odds of receiving cranial radiation with partial sedation over full sedation (OR: 1.927; 95% CI: 1.213-3.061; p=0.0055) after adjustment for tumor location and duration of intervention sessions. Each additional minute for the duration of all intervention sessions was associated with a 0.4% increase in the odds of receiving cranial radiation with partial sedation over full sedation after adjustment for age and tumor location (OR: 1.004; 95% CI: 1.000-1.008; p=0.0318). Economic Impact of a Child Life Intervention on Sedation Use The total treatment cost, total child life intervention cost, and the combined total cost of treatment and intervention are shown for the total population and for patients that received intervention only in Tables 3 and 4. The total treatment cost, child life intervention cost and combined treatment and intervention cost increased with the utilization of sedation during treatment. The child life intervention was highest for patients that received partial sedation, followed in cost by no sedation and full sedation. From previous described results, we found that the child life intervention has a significant impact on sedation use, such that, the more sessions or time spent in sessions the more likely a patient was to receive partial sedation over full sedation. The child life intervention significantly reduced the healthcare cost by reducing the need for sedation from full to partial sedation with a mean cost difference of $77,813 ([14,477], p<0.0001). Future Plans Data analyses validate play-based procedural preparation and support are valuable interventions for decreasing the amount and costs of daily sedation use in cranial radiation therapy for children with CNS tumors. This study supports the value of the child life profession as a play-based developmental service, but also as a crucial component of cost effective healthcare. The research team is currently writing a manuscript based on the data collected. The anticipated submission to Pediatrics is estimated for November 1, 2014.

Appendix A. OUTCOME MEASURES FORM Section 1: Demographic Information MRN: Birthday: Date of RT CT SIM: Age at time of RT CT SIM: Gender: male female Diagnosis: Posterior fossa, developmental delay, autism diagnosis? YES NO (If yes, end data collection.) Section 2: Radiation/Sedation Information Received prior radiation at St. Jude or another facility: YES NO (If yes, end data collection.) Medical indications that necessitate sedation? YES NO Type of indication: (If yes, did patient begin radiation therapy under anesthesia? YES NO. If yes, end data collection.) Treatment Start Date: Treatment End date: Total dosage (gray) of treatment: Average duration of individual sessions: minutes Patient position during treatment: Sedation use: ALL PARTIAL NONE Total number of treatments WITH sedation: Dates range of treatments WITH sedation: Total number of treatments WITHOUT sedation: Dates range of treatments WITHOUT sedation:

Section 3: Child Life Intervention Information Date of CL intervention 1: Duration of CL intervention 1: minutes Name of child life specialist: Type of intervention (circle all that apply): Child Life Reports Medical Rounds/Staff Contacts Patient/Family Education Procedural Preparation Medical Play Diagnosis Teaching Procedural Support Rehearsal/practice session Distraction/diversion Therapeutic Interventions Play Emotional Support Relationship Building Peer Support Developmental Stimulation Limiting sensory stimulation Environmental interventions Parent/Caregiver Interventions Parent education/ Reinforcement Family Guidance Obtaining Feedback Child s Responses Demonstrated understanding Identified coping plan Remained still Completed with assistance Completed without assistance Reported anxiety Denied anxiety CLS observed anxiety No observed anxiety Date of CL intervention 2: Duration of CL intervention 2: minutes Name of child life specialist: Type of intervention (circle all that apply): Child Life Reports Medical Rounds/Staff Contacts Peer Support Developmental Stimulation Identified coping plan Patient/Family Education Procedural Preparation Limiting sensory stimulation Remained still Completed with assistance Medical Play Diagnosis Teaching Environmental interventions Completed without assistance Procedural Support Rehearsal/practice session Distraction/diversion Therapeutic Interventions Play Parent/Caregiver Interventions Parent education/ Reinforcement Family Guidance Obtaining Feedback Reported anxiety Denied Anxiety CLS observed anxiety No observed anxiety Emotional Support Child s Responses Relationship Building Demonstrated understanding

Table 1: Characteristics for the total population Sedation Use Overall (N=129) None (n=68) Partial (n=16) Full (n=45) Age at time of treatment Mean (SD) 8.1 (2.3) 9.5 (1.8) 7.7 (2.1) 6.2 (1.3) Median [range] 8.0 [5.0-13.1] 9.0 [5.3-13.1] 7.5 [5.1-12.1] 5.7 [5.0-12.0] Gender Female 54 (42%) 29 (43%) 5 (31%) 20 (44%) Male 75 (58%) 39 (57%) 11 (69%) 25 (56%) Tumor location Infratentorial 81 (63%) 32 (47%) 14 (88%) 35 (78%) Supratentorial 47 (36%) 36 (53%) 2 (13%) 9 (20%) Infratentorial/Supratentorial 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) Patient position during treatment Prone 36 (28%) 14 (21%) 5 (31%) 17 (38%) Supine 78 (60%) 47 (69%) 8 (50%) 23 (51%) Prone/Supine 15 (12%) 7 (10%) 3 (19%) 5 (11%) Received child life intervention No 13 (10%) 7 (10%) 1 (6%) 5 (11%) Yes 116 (90%) 61 (90%) 15 (94%) 40 (89%) Number of child life intervention sessions Mean (SD) 4.0 (3.3) 3.7 (3.0) 6.1 (4.1) 3.8 (3.2) Median [range] 3 [0-14] 3 [0-12] 6 [0-14] 3 [0-11] Total duration of all child life intervention sessions (minutes) Mean (SD) 189.2 (167.9) 194.8 (159.7) 281.6 (219.8) 148.0 (147.8) Median [range] 140.0 [0-755] 150 [0-675] 247.5 [0-755] 100 [0-567]

Table 2: Multinomial logistic regression modeling sedation use predicted by demographic, clinical, and intervention factors among patients that received intervention No sedation vs. Full sedation Partial sedation vs. Full sedation Odds ratio (95% CI) P Odds ratio (95% CI) P Univariate models Age at time of treatment 3.244 (2.124-4.954) <0.0001 1.997 (1.278-3.118) 0.0024 Gender Female vs Male) 0.971 (0.435-2.165) 0.9418 0.611 (0.177-2.115) 0.4370 Tumor location (Infratentorial vs Supratentorial)* 0.186 (0.071-0.485) 0.0006 1.421 (0.260-7.768) 0.6849 Patient position during treatment Prone vs Prone/Supine 0.413 (0.081-2.093) 0.2853 0.469 (0.060-3.647) 0.4692 Supine vs Prone/Supine 1.286 (0.281-5.891) 0.7462 0.571 (0.080-4.080) 0.5769 Total number of child life intervention sessions 0.989 (0.863-1.134) 0.8741 1.220 (1.020-1.458) 0.0294 Total duration of all child life intervention sessions (minutes) 1.002 (0.999-1.005) 0.1111 1.005 (1.001-1.009) 0.0089 Multivariate model #1 a Age at time of treatment 3.001 (1.967-4.577) <0.0001 2.015 (1.267-3.204) 0.0031 Tumor location (Infratentorial vs Supratentorial)* 0.343 (0.096-1.221) 0.0987 2.773 (0.425-18.101) 0.2865 Total number of child life intervention sessions 0.973 (0.808-1.171) 0.7684 1.233 (1.007-1.511) 0.0430 Multivariate model #2 a Age at time of treatment 2.953 (1.935-4.508) <0.0001 1.927 (1.213-3.061) 0.0055 Tumor location (Infratentorial vs Supratentorial)* 0.405 (0.112-1.463) 0.1678 2.746 (0.425-17.738) 0.2887 Total duration of all child life intervention sessions (minutes) 1.001 (0.998-1.005) 0.4278 1.004 (1.000-1.008) 0.0318 a The criterion of p<0.1 was used to select variables from the univariate analysis to include in the multivariate analysis. *The patient with an infraterntorial and supratentorial tumor was excluded as there is only one patient in this group.

Table 3: Cost of treatment and intervention by sedation use for the total population Cost Variables No sedation N Mean SD Median Min Max Total treatments with sedation 68 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total treatments without sedation 68 30.2 3.0 30.0 19.0 38.0 Total treatment cost a 68 $54,738.85 $5,490.82 $54,339.30 $34,414.89 $68,829.78 Total child life intervention cost b 68 $82.02 $67.26 $63.17 $0.00 $284.25 Total treatment and Intervention cost c 68 $54,820.88 $5,483.51 $54,534.06 $34,520.17 $68,922.42 Partial sedation Cost Variables N Mean SD Median Min Max Total treatments with sedation 16 7.4 6.9 5.5 1.0 27.0 Total treatments without sedation 16 22.9 6.6 24.5 4.0 30.0 Total treatment cost a 16 $80,358.84 $24,596.21 $73,162.06 $52,327.69 $148553.25 Total child life intervention cost b 16 $118.57 $92.56 $104.23 $0.00 $317.94 Total treatment and Intervention cost c 16 $80,477.41 $24,630.76 $73,267.34 $52,344.53 $148,660.63 Full sedation Cost Variables N Mean SD Median Min Max Total treatments with sedation 45 30.4 1.6 30.0 26.0 35.0 Total treatments without sedation 45 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 Total treatment cost a 45 $159,026.30 $8,271.12 $157,008.90 $136,074.38 $184,988.36 Total child life intervention cost b 45 $62.34 $62.25 $42.11 $0.00 $238.77 Total treatment and Intervention cost c 45 $159,088.64 $8,274.15 $157,162.61 $13,6074.38 $185,179.97 a Estimated by: (# of treatments with sedation x $5,233.63) + (# of treatments without sedation x $1,811.31) b Estimated by: (total minutes spent in all child life intervention sessions/45 minutes) X $18.95 c Estimated by: total treatment cost + total child life intervention cost

Table 4: Cost of treatment and intervention by sedation use for patients that received intervention Cost Variables No sedation N Mean SD Median Min Max Total treatments with sedation 61 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total treatments without sedation 61 30.1 3.2 30.0 19.0 38.0 Total treatment cost a 61 $54,606.54 $5,754.88 $54,339.30 $34,414.89 $68,829.78 Total child life intervention cost b 61 $91.44 $64.63 $73.69 $12.63 $284.25 Total treatment and Intervention cost c 61 $54,697.98 $5,749.15 $54,533.01 $34,520.17 $68,922.42 Partial sedation Cost Variables N Mean SD Median Min Max Total treatments with sedation 15 7.7 7.0 6.0 1.0 27.0 Total treatments without sedation 15 22.6 6.7 24.0 4.0 30.0 Total treatment cost a 15 $81,409.01 $25,085.45 $74,873.22 $52,327.69 $148,553.25 Total child life intervention cost b 15 $126.47 $90.05 $107.38 $16.84 $317.94 Total treatment and Intervention cost c 15 $81,535.49 $25,116.06 $74,906.91 $52,344.53 $148,660.63 Full sedation Cost Variables N Mean SD Median Min Max Total treatments with sedation 40 30.4 1.4 30.0 27.0 35.0 Total treatments without sedation 40 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 Total treatment cost a 40 $159,278.48 $7,637.70 $157,008.90 $141,308.01 $184,988.36 Total child life intervention cost b 40 $70.14 $61.74 $44.22 $6.32 $238.77 Total treatment and Intervention cost c 40 $159,348.61 $7,638.99 $157,181.56 $141,358.54 $185,179.97 a Estimated by: (# of treatments with sedation x $5,233.63) + (# of treatments without sedation x $1,811.31) b Estimated by: (total minutes spent in all child life intervention sessions/45 minutes) X $18.95 c Estimated by: total treatment cost + total child life intervention cost