A retrospective study examining the clinical significance of testing respiratory panels in children who presented to a tertiary hospital in 2019.

Respiratory tract infections are a leading cause of hospital visits in the paediatric population and carry significant associated morbidity and mortality in this population. The introduction of respiratory panel testing has been said to guide clinicians in the overall management of patients. We conducted a retrospective study examining all respiratory panels carried out in our hospital during 2019 on paediatric patients. Patients included were those who had symptoms indicative of respiratory infections who presented acutely, including those with chronic respiratory conditions. A total of 188 respiratory panel results were obtained along with collected patient data. These were analysed using SPSS V. 25.0 to get the below mentioned results. The majority (76.6 %) of patients were less than 3 years with 59 % of total population being males. The majority (80.9 %) had mild clinical severity score. The most common pathogen that was detected on the respiratory panel was spp, followed by the viruses. Only four cases were positive for bacterial pathogens (two , one and one ), which accounts for 2.1 % of all panels analysed. The significance of respiratory panels in influencing treatment were analysed in the forms of change of management plans before and after results of respiratory panels. This was observed in 14.4 % of patients who were not on any empiric medication and then based on panel results were started on medications, as well as 11.7 % who were on medications already, and the medications were altered based on the result of the panel (Chi square =0.057). This was mainly seen with cases of patients and to a lesser extent, . The use of respiratory panels in our hospital had little impact on patient care and management. The main organisms that influenced clinician decision in treatment were viruses and bacterial organisms ( , and ). Other than that, the use of clinical judgement proved more beneficial. We recommend use of specific testing for these organisms rather than the whole panel as case to case bases, which would be more cost-effective and consistent with patient management.