CJEM最新文献

Objective: Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of procedural sedation and analgesia in pediatric emergency department (ED) settings by investigating the incidence of cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological adverse events associated with different sedation medications.

Methods: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive database search for randomized controlled trials was performed across ten databases from January 2005 to June 2024. Our inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials involving children under 18 years old undergoing pediatric sedation and analgesia in the ED. Data on medication types, dosages, administration routes, and adverse events were extracted and analyzed. Primary endpoints included cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and neurological adverse events.

Results: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria, a total of 2,302 procedural sedations. The most common adverse events were vomiting, agitation, and hypoxia, which occurred in 104.9 [95% CI = 76.9-132.9], 37.5 [95% CI = 20.6-54.4], 38.3 [95% CI = 23.9-52.6] of each 1000 sedations, respectively. Other adverse events included apnea, hypotension, and the need for bag-valve mask ventilation, which occurred in 8.6 [95% CI: 3.5-13.6], 9.3 [95% CI: -1.4 to 20.1], and 13.5 [95% CI: 3.2-23.8] of each 1,000 sedations, respectively. Severe adverse events were rare, with no reported instances of intubation and only one case of laryngospasm. Subgroup analyses revealed varying incidence rates of adverse events across different sedation protocols, with ketamine and its combinations showing higher rates of specific respiratory complications.

Conclusions: Procedural sedation in pediatric EDs is generally safe, with a low incidence of adverse events, such as vomiting, agitation, and hypoxia. Life-threatening respiratory adverse events are extremely rare. Our findings thus support the careful selection and monitoring of sedation protocols to minimize risks.

Purpose: This study aimed to understand current prehospital trauma air-ambulance policies and triage guidelines across Canada. The research question centered on understanding the guidelines used by provinces and territories and identifying potential regional variations in air-ambulance triage.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey from November 2022 to May 2023, involving trauma leaders from Canada's 13 provinces and territories. Participants were identified via the Trauma Association of Canada and professional networks. The survey, developed with expert input and pilot tested for clarity, focused on prehospital trauma-triage guidelines, level of adoption of Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) triage guidelines, and auto-launch air-ambulance policies. Data were collected using an 18-item electronic survey. Potential response bias was considered, and confidentiality was maintained. A cross-sectional qualitative analysis was used to evaluate the guidelines' adoption and variations, with responses compared across regions.

Results: The analysis revealed a nationwide adoption (11 of 11 respondents) of the CDC guidelines, indicating a standardized approach to patient transportation. Notably, many provinces and territories (5 of 11) endorse auto-launch protocols for air ambulances in specific scenarios. These policies offer advantages in geographically vast regions weighed against the cost of over-triage and inefficient resource allocation. Each province and territory tailors its approach based on factors such as geographic areas served, and available resources.

Conclusion: This study provides a snapshot of the current state of prehospital trauma-triage guidelines in Canada. With some differences in nomenclature, Canadian provinces and territories widely apply the CDC guidelines to serve their populations. There is some regional variation on how transport is initiated within their borders. The findings underscore the delicate balance required for optimizing air-ambulance policies, considering factors such as timely access, resource allocation, and the local application of guidelines.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to better understand caregiver perspectives on educational materials relating to paediatric community-acquired pneumonia and antibiotic stewardship in the emergency department setting.

Methods: This was a phenomenologically informed qualitative study. Caregivers of young children in Hamilton, Ontario were presented with four educational materials (animated video, physician led lecture-style video, caregiver led testimony-style video, and a printed brochure) providing information relating to treatment strategies for community-acquired pneumonia. Caregivers were then asked open-ended questions about how they felt about the effectiveness of the media used. The principles of conventional content analysis guided the coding and synthesis of the transcribed interviews.

Results: Eleven caregivers were interviewed. Most caregivers preferred the animated video and brochure to the lecture-style physician video and caregiver testimonial video. Common themes for effective educational materials included visually attention-grabbing graphics, accessible language, and formats they could reference following their visit (e.g. brochure).

Conclusions: The busy nature of the emergency department setting can impede effective communication between clinicians and parents. Employing educational materials may allow for more informed parent-provider communication on care decision making. Caregivers in our study prioritized the simplest information formats for education around community-acquired pneumonia and antimicrobial stewardship which could be referenced following discharge. This was best accomplished by short, animated videos and brochures. Results from this study can inform development of future educational materials used in paediatric emergency department settings to optimize caregiver education and corresponding care plan adherence.