Postcardiac Arrest Care Delivery in Pediatric Intensive Care Units: A Plan and Call to Action.

IF 1.2 Q3 PEDIATRICS Pediatric quality & safety Pub Date : 2024-05-09 eCollection Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1097/pq9.0000000000000727
Jessica A Barreto, Jesse Wenger, Maya Dewan, Alexis Topjian, Joan Roberts
{"title":"Postcardiac Arrest Care Delivery in Pediatric Intensive Care Units: A Plan and Call to Action.","authors":"Jessica A Barreto, Jesse Wenger, Maya Dewan, Alexis Topjian, Joan Roberts","doi":"10.1097/pq9.0000000000000727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite national pediatric postcardiac arrest care (PCAC) guidelines to improve neurological outcomes and survival, there are limited studies describing PCAC delivery in pediatric institutions. This study aimed to describe PCAC delivery in centers belonging to a resuscitation quality collaborative.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An institutional review board-approved REDCap survey was distributed electronically to the lead resuscitation investigator at each institution in the international Pediatric Resuscitation Quality Improvement Collaborative. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. A chi-square test was used to compare categorical data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-four of 47 centers (51%) completed the survey. Most respondents (58%) belonged to large centers (>1,000 annual pediatric intensive care unit admissions). Sixty-seven percent of centers reported no specific process to initiate PCAC with the other third employing order sets, paper forms, or institutional guidelines. Common PCAC targets included temperature (96%), age-based blood pressure (88%), and glucose (75%). Most PCAC included electroencephalogram (75%), but neuroimaging was only included at 46% of centers. Duration of PCAC was either tailored to clinical improvement and neurological examination (54%) or time-based (45%). Only 25% of centers reported having a mechanism for evaluating PCAC adherence. Common barriers to effective PCAC implementation included lack of time and limited training opportunities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is wide variation in PCAC delivery among surveyed pediatric institutions despite national guidelines to standardize and implement PCAC.</p>","PeriodicalId":74412,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric quality & safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11093557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric quality & safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000727","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite national pediatric postcardiac arrest care (PCAC) guidelines to improve neurological outcomes and survival, there are limited studies describing PCAC delivery in pediatric institutions. This study aimed to describe PCAC delivery in centers belonging to a resuscitation quality collaborative.

Methods: An institutional review board-approved REDCap survey was distributed electronically to the lead resuscitation investigator at each institution in the international Pediatric Resuscitation Quality Improvement Collaborative. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. A chi-square test was used to compare categorical data.

Results: Twenty-four of 47 centers (51%) completed the survey. Most respondents (58%) belonged to large centers (>1,000 annual pediatric intensive care unit admissions). Sixty-seven percent of centers reported no specific process to initiate PCAC with the other third employing order sets, paper forms, or institutional guidelines. Common PCAC targets included temperature (96%), age-based blood pressure (88%), and glucose (75%). Most PCAC included electroencephalogram (75%), but neuroimaging was only included at 46% of centers. Duration of PCAC was either tailored to clinical improvement and neurological examination (54%) or time-based (45%). Only 25% of centers reported having a mechanism for evaluating PCAC adherence. Common barriers to effective PCAC implementation included lack of time and limited training opportunities.

Conclusions: There is wide variation in PCAC delivery among surveyed pediatric institutions despite national guidelines to standardize and implement PCAC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿科重症监护室的心脏骤停后护理服务:计划和行动呼吁。
背景:尽管国家制定了儿科心脏骤停术后护理(PCAC)指南以改善神经系统预后和存活率,但描述儿科机构 PCAC 实施情况的研究却非常有限。本研究旨在描述隶属于复苏质量合作组织的中心提供 PCAC 的情况:方法:通过电子方式向国际儿科复苏质量改进合作组织各机构的首席复苏调查员分发机构审查委员会批准的 REDCap 调查表。数据采用描述性统计进行汇总。采用卡方检验比较分类数据:47 个中心中有 24 个(51%)完成了调查。大多数受访者(58%)属于大型中心(每年儿科重症监护病房收治人数大于 1,000 人)。67%的中心表示没有启动 PCAC 的具体流程,另外三分之一的中心则采用了订单集、纸质表格或机构指南。常见的 PCAC 目标包括体温(96%)、基于年龄的血压(88%)和血糖(75%)。大多数 PCAC 包括脑电图(75%),但只有 46% 的中心包括神经影像检查。PCAC 的持续时间要么是根据临床改善和神经系统检查情况而定(54%),要么是根据时间而定(45%)。仅有 25% 的中心报告拥有评估 PCAC 依从性的机制。有效实施 PCAC 的常见障碍包括缺乏时间和培训机会有限:结论:尽管国家制定了规范和实施 PCAC 的指南,但接受调查的儿科机构在 PCAC 的实施方面仍存在很大差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic Safety: Needs Assessment and Informed Curriculum at an Academic Children's Hospital. Implementing Screening for Neonatal Delirium in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Quality Improvement Initiative. Is Neonatal Delirium Ready for Prime Time Quality Improvement? Outpatient Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Low-risk Children with Solid Tumors: A Quality Improvement Initiative. A Quality Improvement Initiative to Reduce Duplicate Inflammatory Marker Use.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1