Croup severity and admission thresholds: NICE vs RCPCH vs APLS (2025)

Compare Severity / admission thresholds for Croup across NICE, RCPCH, and APLS. Built for Children. Setting: Emergency & Paediatrics. Urgency: Urgent.

Why this threshold matters

Clear thresholds help clinicians answer "when do I act?" for croup, aligning expectations between NICE, RCPCH, and APLS. Use this side-by-side view to decide when to refer, escalate, monitor, or initiate treatment.

Decision areaSeverity / admission thresholds
SpecialtyPaediatrics / Emergency
PopulationChildren
SettingEmergency & Paediatrics
Decision typeEscalation
UrgencyUrgent

Guideline comparison

Guideline body Position Population & urgency
NICE Position on Severity / admission thresholds for Croup Children | Urgency: Urgent | Setting: Emergency & Paediatrics
RCPCH Position on Severity / admission thresholds for Croup Children | Urgency: Urgent | Setting: Emergency & Paediatrics
APLS Position on Severity / admission thresholds for Croup Children | Urgency: Urgent | Setting: Emergency & Paediatrics
Clinical cues: Confirm patient population and care setting, then align with the most urgent recommendation shown. Escalate to the strictest threshold if the patient deteriorates or if local policy mandates the fastest response.

Clinical Context

Croup affects approximately 3% of children annually in the UK, primarily those aged 6 months to 3 years. The clinical challenge lies in differentiating viral croup from more serious conditions like epiglottitis while balancing the need for timely intervention against unnecessary hospital admissions. Missing severity thresholds can lead to delayed steroid administration, progressive airway obstruction, and respiratory distress requiring emergency management.

NICE provides evidence-based thresholds focusing on cost-effectiveness and primary care management. RCPCH emphasizes practical paediatric assessment tools tailored to hospital settings. APLS delivers emergency-focused guidance with rapid escalation criteria for critical airway compromise. Understanding these philosophical differences helps clinicians apply the most appropriate threshold based on their clinical context.

Guideline Scope and Authority

Guideline Primary Focus Typical Setting Publication/Update
NICE Evidence-based standards across NHS Primary care through to hospital 2023 (NG 120)
RCPCH Paediatric specialist care Secondary care and paediatric units 2024
APLS Emergency and critical care Emergency departments and ICU 2024 (7th edition)

Use NICE as the default standard for community and general hospital practice. Consult RCPCH guidelines when managing patients in paediatric specialty units. APLS provides critical emergency thresholds for deteriorating patients requiring urgent airway management. Cross-reference between guidelines when patients transition between care settings or when uncertainty exists about the appropriate escalation pathway.

Core Severity Threshold Definitions

Severity Category NICE Threshold RCPCH Threshold APLS Threshold Clinical Notes
Mild Barking cough, no stridor at rest Intermittent stridor, mild recession Stridor only when agitated Usually managed at home
Moderate Stridor at rest, mild recession Audible stridor at rest, moderate recession Stridor at rest, tachycardia Requires oral dexamethasone
Severe Marked recession, agitation/lethargy Significant work of breathing, tachycardia Stridor at rest with distress, tachycardia Admission indicated
Life-threatening Cyanosis, decreased air entry Exhaustion, cyanosis, silent chest Impending respiratory failure Emergency intervention required
Threshold Alignment: All three bodies agree on the fundamental progression from mild to life-threatening croup. The key difference lies in where they set the admission threshold - NICE tends toward community management where possible, while APLS adopts a lower threshold for hospital assessment in moderate cases.

Monitoring and Assessment Intervals

NICE Approach

RCPCH Approach

APLS Approach

Key Difference: NICE emphasizes appropriate intervals for community management, RCPCH provides structured hospital monitoring protocols, while APLS adopts the most intensive surveillance approach focused on emergency airway protection.

Escalation and Referral Triggers

Trigger NICE Action RCPCH Action APLS Action
Stridor at rest Consider oral dexamethasone, review in 2 hours Administer steroids, admit for observation Immediate steroid administration, prepare for nebulised adrenaline
Moderate-severe recession Urgent hospital assessment Paediatric team review, consider admission Emergency department referral, continuous monitoring
Tachycardia >160 bpm Emergency assessment Immediate paediatric review Critical trigger - prepare for airway intervention
Oxygen saturation <92% Emergency admission Urgent senior review, oxygen therapy Immediate emergency intervention
Agitation or lethargy Hospital admission indicated Sign of severity - admit immediately Pre-terminal sign - emergency airway management
Failed initial treatment Secondary care referral Senior paediatrician review Emergency escalation protocol
Clinical Nuance: The most significant difference appears in the management of stridor at rest. NICE allows for community management with close follow-up, while APLS adopts a more aggressive intervention approach. Consider the clinical environment and available resources when deciding which threshold to apply.

Clinical Scenarios

Scenario 1: Borderline Moderate Croup

Presentation: 18-month-old with barking cough, intermittent stridor at rest, mild intercostal recession, respiratory rate 35, heart rate 140. Appears comfortable when undisturbed.

Analysis: NICE would recommend oral dexamethasone with community follow-up. RCPCH would suggest hospital assessment and observation. APLS would recommend emergency department evaluation. The community-based approach may be appropriate if reliable follow-up exists, but hospital assessment provides greater safety margin.

Scenario 2: Rapidly Deteriorating Severe Croup

Presentation: 2-year-old with severe stridor, marked recession, tachycardia (170 bpm), and increasing agitation. Oxygen saturation 94% on room air.

Analysis: All guidelines agree on immediate hospital admission. NICE emphasizes steroid administration and monitoring. RCPCH adds structured scoring and paediatric team involvement. APLS focuses on preparing for nebulised adrenaline and potential airway intervention. The APLS approach is most appropriate given the rapid deterioration risk.

Scenario 3: Infant with Atypical Features

Presentation: 9-month-old with stridor, fever 38.5°C, drooling, and toxic appearance. Differentiating croup from epiglottitis.

Analysis: All guidelines prioritize ruling out epiglottitis. NICE recommends urgent hospital assessment. RCPCH emphasizes paediatric specialist review. APLS focuses on emergency airway management preparation. The APLS approach is critical here due to the higher risk of airway obstruction in infants with atypical presentations.

Assessment Tools and Scoring Systems

The Westley Croup Score provides objective severity assessment, though its use varies between guidelines:

Practical application: A score of 3-5 suggests moderate croup requiring steroids and observation. Scores ≥8 indicate severe croup needing urgent intervention. Remember that clinical judgement supersedes numerical scores, particularly in rapidly changing situations.

Common Clinical Pitfalls

  1. Underestimating stridor at rest: Assuming intermittent stridor is benign can delay steroid administration and lead to rapid deterioration.
  2. Over-relying on oxygen saturation: Hypoxia is a late sign in croup - tachycardia and work of breathing provide earlier warning.
  3. Missing atypical presentations: Infants under 12 months or patients with high fever may have more serious pathology mimicking croup.
  4. Delaying steroids in moderate cases: Early dexamethasone significantly reduces progression to severe disease.
  5. Inadequate monitoring after treatment: Patients can deteriorate after initial improvement - maintain vigilance for 4-6 hours.
  6. Failure to prepare for emergency escalation: Not having adrenaline nebulisation ready in severe cases risks delayed critical intervention.
  7. Ignoring parental concern: Caregivers often recognise subtle deterioration before objective signs appear.

Practical Action Plan

Clinical Decision Pathway

  • ✓ Use NICE thresholds for community management of mild-moderate croup
  • ✓ Apply RCPCH guidelines for hospital inpatients and specialty paediatric care
  • ✓ Follow APLS protocols for emergency department presentations and deteriorating patients
  • ✓ Key threshold: Stridor at rest warrants steroid administration and close monitoring
  • ✓ Red flag: Tachycardia >160 bpm or oxygen saturation <92% requires emergency intervention
  • ✓ Don't miss: Atypical features in infants - rule out epiglottitis
  • ✓ Remember: Dexamethasone works within 2 hours - reassess promptly
  • ✓ Consider Westley Score for objective monitoring in hospital settings
  • ✓ Timing: Deterioration can occur rapidly - maintain high vigilance for 4-6 hours

Practical takeaways

How to use this page

  • Start with the decision area: severity / admission thresholds for Croup.
  • Note urgency: treat recommendations tagged Urgent as the ceiling for response times.
  • When bodies differ, document the rationale in the notes and follow local governance for Emergency & Paediatrics.
  • Use the threshold index to jump to related conditions and maintain consistency across teams.

Sources

Refer to the full guidelines for exact wording and local adaptations. This summary is for rapid orientation and multidisciplinary alignment.