Pediatric emergency care最新文献

Objectives: General emergency medicine (EM) physicians provide most pediatric emergency care in the United States, yet EM physicians feel underprepared to manage pediatric emergencies. Pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) education during EM residency is variable, and learner preferences regarding educational experiences have not been widely explored through a qualitative lens. We aimed to better describe EM physicians' PEM educational needs and preferred teaching methods.

Methods: In 2021, as part of a survey querying senior EM residents and recent graduates from 8 diverse EM programs regarding perceived preparedness for PEM emergencies, educational needs and content delivery methods were assessed using 2 free-text questions. Qualitative analysis included deidentification and iterative coding of the data with double coding of 100% of the comments. We performed conventional content analysis of responses to identify emerging themes.

Results: The overall response rate for the survey was 53% (N = 129 out of 242 eligible participants) with 84 distinct free-text responses. Major themes included: 1) desire for education regarding neonates, infants, and critically ill children, especially airway management and 2) need for help translating lessons from PEM rotations to community EM practice. Respondents desired more autonomy during training. Their preferred PEM educational modality was simulation, and they appreciated online clinical pathways for just-in-time decision support.

Conclusions: This qualitative study of EM physicians proximal to training adds to a prior needs assessment by describing in detail desired pediatric content and preferred delivery. The findings can be used to better inform the development of PEM curricula for this group of EM physicians.

Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a marked shift toward telesimulation in medical education. Limited studies exist comparing the effectiveness of online and offline simulation education. The goals of this study are to evaluate active learners' perceived effectiveness of telesimulation versus in situ simulation and to identify potential shortcomings of existing online teaching platforms.

Methods: Through participant evaluations after a simulation, we compared telesimulation using the Virtual Resus Room (VRR) to in situ simulation in the domains of (1) self-efficacy, (2) fidelity, (3) educational value, and (4) teaching quality. Study subjects included medical and pharmacy residents and medical students completing their pediatric emergency medicine rotation at two children's hospitals as well as nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who were recently hired and orienting to their new roles in the emergency department. Learners used a modified Michigan Standard Simulation Experience Scale to evaluate either a telesimulation or in situ simulation case. Survey responses were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Results: In overall assessment, in situ simulation was rated higher than telesimulation. There were significant differences noted related to perceived realism, utility in training device-related skills, and utility in training team-building skills. All P values were less than 0.0036. There were no significant differences between simulation types in perception of physical examination fidelity, instructor adequacy, or self-efficacy.

Conclusions: Telesimulation using the VRR is comparable to in situ simulation in learners' perception of improvement in self-efficacy and of teaching quality for pediatric emergency medicine topics. However, participants felt less able to practice tactile and communication skills virtually. Further innovation is needed to improve learners' experience with fidelity and educational value.

Background: Minoritized patients are disproportionately represented in low-acuity emergency department (ED) visits in the United States in part caused by lack of timely access to primary and urgent care. However, there is also the possibility that implicit bias during triage could contribute to disproportionate representation of minority groups in low-acuity ED visits. Triage discordance, defined as when ED resources used are different from initial triage score predictions, can be used as a proxy for triage accuracy. Recent data suggest that discordant triage may be common, although little is known about the interaction with race, ethnicity, and language for care.

Objectives: This study aims to determine the prevalence of discordant triage among moderate- and low-acuity pediatric ED encounters and the interaction with patient race, ethnicity, and language for care.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of pediatric ED encounters from 2019 with Emergency Severity Index (ESI) scores of 3, 4, or 5 at an academic referral hospital. The primary outcome was triage discordance, encompassing overtriage (ESI 3 and 4) and undertriage (ESI 4 and 5). Logistic and multinomial regressions were used to assess discordant triage by race, ethnicity, and language group.

Results: Triage discordance occurred in 47% (n = 18,040) of encounters. Black and Hispanic patients had higher likelihood of undertriage for ESI 5 (adjusted odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.46 and 1.27, 95% CI 1.07-1.52, respectively), and Black patients were more likely to be overtriaged in ESI 3 (1.18, 95% CI 1.09-1.27). Those with a language other than English for care had higher proportions of overtriage for ESI 3 (1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12) and undertriage for ESI 5 (1.23, 95% CI 1.11-1.37).

Conclusions: We found high rates of triage discordance in our pediatric ED, with significant associations with race, ethnicity, and language for care. Future research should evaluate the source of triage discordance and develop quality improvement efforts to improve equitable care.

Abstract: Early recognition of septic shock and its treatment are key factors for limiting progression to multiple organ dysfunction and death. Lactate, a byproduct of metabolic pathways, is usually elevated in tissue hypoperfusion and shock and is associated with poor prognosis in sepsis. As a biomarker, it may help the clinician in risk stratification, and the identification and treatment of sepsis. In this article, we provide an update on lactate's pathophysiology and role in diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in children with sepsis and septic shock.

Background: While COVID-19 vaccine (CV) acceptance is improving, little is known about parental acceptance of CV in the pediatric emergency department (PED).

Objectives: The aims of the study are to assess rates of CV uptake among eligible children presenting to the PED, describe caregiver willingness to accept CV in the PED, and assess potential ED-based interventions to increase CV acceptance.

Methods: We surveyed caregivers of 384 children aged ≥6 months presenting to the PED for minor illness/injury. Demographics, COVID-19/other vaccine history, and intent/willingness to receive CV were recorded. Participants were recontacted by phone 6-12 months after vaccine eligibility to assess CV status, barriers to CV, willingness to receive CV in the ED, and preferences for ED-based vaccine-related interventions. Data were analyzed using standard descriptive statistics.

Results: In initial surveys, 31.6% of caregivers planned to vaccinate their child; 32.2% would likely accept CV in the PED. Follow-up data was available for 302 (78.6%) previously unvaccinated participants; only 59 (19.5%) had received CV at follow-up. Of those unvaccinated at follow-up, 27 (28.7%) intended to vaccinate, nearly all of whom would accept CV in the PED. Factors associated with increased likelihood of vaccination included initial intent to vaccinate ( P = 0.004), definite/probable acceptance of CV in the PED ( P = 0.035), and child age 5+ ( P = 0.005). Nearly one-fourth of unvaccinated families reported barriers to CV access. Interventions most likely to persuade families to vaccinate included: discussing CV with a provider (25.5%), receiving an information sheet (23.4%), and offering CV without an ED visit (22.3%).

Conclusions: CV acceptance was low in this cohort. A gap population of unvaccinated children whose caregivers intend to vaccinate exists, and many of these would accept CV in the ED. This data supports the presence of CV programs in the ED to close this gap.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the guardian-perceived 3-month cosmetic outcome for pediatric lacerations repaired with absorbable sutures, Dermabond, or Steri-Strips. Secondarily, pain and satisfaction with the procedure from both guardian and provider perspectives were compared.

Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of children aged 0 to <18 years who presented with simple linear lacerations (≤5 cm in length, ≤0.5 cm in width, and <12 hours old) to a pediatric emergency department. Children were randomized to receive laceration repair with absorbable sutures, Dermabond, or Steri-Strips. Topical L.E.T. solution (lidocaine, epinephrine, tetracaine) was applied to wounds which were then closed by the primary team. Guardians and providers completed questionnaires regarding perceived pain and satisfaction with the procedure. Guardians were contacted 3 months after the repair and asked to email a picture of the scar with their perception of cosmesis rated on a visual analog scale from 0 to 100.

Results: Fifty-five patients were enrolled, of whom 30 completed 3-month follow-up (12 suture, 7 Dermabond, 11 Steri-strips). There was no statistical evidence of an association between scar appearance and closure method based on medians and interquartile ranges for cosmetic ratings of scar: suture median 70.5 (IQR 59.8-76.8), Dermabond median 85 (IQR 73-90), Steri-strips median 67 (IQR 55-78) ( P = 0.254). Guardian satisfaction with length of stay, guardian and physician satisfaction with the procedure, and guardian and physician-perceived pain also showed no differences.

Conclusions: No differences were observed in guardian-perceived cosmesis of simple lacerations repaired with sutures, Dermabond, or Steri-Strips when evaluated 3 months after intervention. In addition, there were no differences in guardian or physician-perceived pain or satisfaction with the closure methods. The results of this study suggest that all 3 closure methods appear to be clinically equivalent, which is largely consistent with other evidence. Further study should be expanded to a larger demographic.

Objectives: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the emergency department (ED) may facilitate the diagnosis of nonsurgical sources of abdominal pain after surgical causes are excluded. Identifying mesenteric adenitis is a feasible POCUS application due to its ease of use and speed. However, there are scant data regarding the diagnosis of mesenteric adenitis by POCUS. The objective of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and interobserver agreement of mesenteric adenitis identified on POCUS in pediatric patients with nonsurgical abdominal pain.

Methods: This was a retrospective review at a tertiary-care, urban pediatric ED. All cases of mesenteric adenitis diagnosed on POCUS from January 2018 to August 2022 were reviewed. Demographics and clinical data, including relevant outcomes, were recorded. All POCUS videos were reviewed by a senior sonologist-physician for determination of mesenteric adenitis in children 21 years and younger with nonsurgical abdominal pain. Interobserver agreement by Cohen κ was calculated between experienced and novice physician sonologists blinded to diagnosis, who reviewed 77 six-second video clips for presence or absence of mesenteric adenitis.

Results: Thirty - three subjects were identified by POCUS to have mesenteric adenitis in the setting of nonsurgical abdominal pain presenting to our ED. Most common indications for POCUS were for suspected appendicitis, suspected intussusception, or undifferentiated abdominal pain. Forty-six percent of patients were male; median age was 9 years (interquartile range, 4-14 years). On 4-week clinical follow-up, 1 patient returned to our ED with a surgical abdomen. Cohen κ values were 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.97) between experienced sonologist-physicians and 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-.90) between novice and experienced sonologist-physicians.

Conclusions: POCUS can identify mesenteric adenitis, typically a diagnosis of exclusion, in pediatric patients with nonsurgical abdominal pain, both by novice and experienced physician-sonologists. Use of POCUS may help ED clinicians identify a common cause of nonsurgical abdominal pain in children.

Objectives: Pediatric patients with extremity fractures often require sedation for fracture reduction in the pediatric emergency department (PED). Although orthopedic literature suggests combination sedation regimens may be more effective for fracture reduction, some pediatric literature suggests adverse events are more frequent. The primary objective of this study is to determine the comparable depth of sedation and incidence of adverse events when intravenous ketamine is used alone versus with midazolam for pediatric procedural sedation and orthopedic fracture reduction.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients 2-18 years old who underwent sedation for fracture reduction in the PED at a single level 1 trauma center over a 2-year period. Medical records were reviewed, and occurrence of adverse events, depth of sedation (Ramsey score), midazolam dose, total ketamine administration, opiate administration, total sedation time, and time to PED discharge were compared in patients who received ketamine alone versus those who received ketamine with midazolam. Logistic regression models were adjusted to evaluate for potential confounders.

Results: There was a statistically significant increase in the occurrence of hypoxia with coadministration of midazolam (5% vs 0%). When hypoxia occurred, it was mild and resolved with repositioning or administration of supplemental oxygen. Length of sedation was increased in sedations with coadministration of benzodiazepines by approximately 3.5 minutes. Time to PED discharge was not significantly different. There was no significant difference in depth of sedation, ketamine dose administered, end-tidal CO 2 measurements, administration of positive pressure ventilation, vomiting, agitation, or overall occurrence of adverse events. No patients developed apnea or laryngospasm.

Conclusions: This study showed a low rate of adverse events in pediatric sedation for orthopedic reduction with ketamine alone or ketamine with midazolam. There was an increased occurrence of hypoxia with coadministration of midazolam and an increase in the length of sedation. This study showed no difference in depth of sedation based on Ramsay scores when midazolam was coadministered. Information on the orthopedic reduction and provider satisfaction was not collected.