Search

BackgroundDiagnostic errors, reframed as missed opportunities for improving diagnosis (MOIDs), are poorly understood in the paediatric emergency department (ED) setting. We investigated the clinical experience, harm and contributing factors related to MOIDs reported by physicians working in paediatric EDs.MethodsWe developed a web-based survey in which physicians participating in the international Paediatric Emergency Research Network representing five out of six WHO regions, described examples of MOIDs involving their own or a colleague's patients. Respondents provided case summaries and answered questions regarding harm and factors contributing to the event.ResultsOf 1594 physicians surveyed, 412 (25.8%) responded (mean age=43 years (SD=9.2), 42.0% female, mean years in practice=12 (SD=9.0)). Patient presentations involving MOIDs had common undifferentiated symptoms at initial presentation, including abdominal pain (21.1%), fever (17.2%) and vomiting (16.5%). Patients were discharged from the ED with commonly reported diagnoses, including acute gastroenteritis (16.7%), viral syndrome (10.2%) and constipation (7.0%). Most reported MOIDs (65%) were detected on ED return visits (46% within 24 hours and 76% within 72 hours). The most common reported MOID was appendicitis (11.4%), followed by brain tumour (4.4%), meningitis (4.4%) and non-accidental trauma (4.1%). More than half (59.1%) of the reported MOIDs involved the patient/parent-provider encounter (eg, misinterpreted/ignored history or an incomplete/inadequate physical examination). Types of MOIDs and contributing factors did not differ significantly between countries. More than half of patients had either moderate (48.7%) or major (10%) harm due to the MOID.ConclusionsAn international cohort of paediatric ED physicians reported several MOIDs, often in children who presented to the ED with common undifferentiated symptoms. Many of these were related to patient/parent-provider interaction factors such as suboptim

BACKGROUND: To assist clinicians with identifying children at risk of severe outcomes, we assessed the association between laboratory findings and severe outcomes among severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected children and determined if SARS-CoV-2 test result status modified the associations. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of participants tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in 41 pediatric emergency departments in 10 countries. Participants were hospitalized, had laboratory testing performed, and completed 14-day follow-up. The primary objective was to assess the associations between laboratory findings and severe outcomes. The secondary objective was to determine if the SARS-CoV-2 test result modified the associations. RESULTS: We included 1817 participants; 522 (28.7%) SARS-CoV-2 test-positive and 1295 (71.3%) test-negative. Seventy-five (14.4%) test-positive and 174 (13.4%) test-negative children experienced severe outcomes. In regression analysis, we found that among SARS-CoV-2-positive children, procalcitonin ≥0.5 ng/mL (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.14; 95% CI, 2.90-28.80), ferritin >500 ng/mL (aOR, 7.95; 95% CI, 1.89-33.44), D-dimer ≥1500 ng/mL (aOR, 4.57; 95% CI, 1.12-18.68), serum glucose ≥120 mg/dL (aOR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.06-3.81), lymphocyte count <1.0 × 109/L (aOR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.34-7.69), and platelet count <150 × 109/L (aOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.31-6.07) were associated with severe outcomes. Evaluation of the interaction term revealed that a positive SARS-CoV-2 result increased the associations with severe outcomes for elevated procalcitonin, C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and for reduced lymphocyte and platelet counts. CONCLUSIONS: Specific laboratory parameters are associated with severe outcomes in SARS-CoV-2-infected children, and elevated serum procalcitonin, CRP, and D-dimer and low absolute lymphocyte and platelet counts were more strongly associated with severe outcomes in children testing positi

Background Diagnostic errors, reframed as missed opportunities for improving diagnosis (MOIDs), are poorly understood in the paediatric emergency department (ED) setting. We investigated the clinical experience, harm and contributing factors related to MOIDs reported by physicians working in paediatric EDs. Methods We developed a web-based survey in which physicians participating in the international Paediatric Emergency Research Network representing five out of six WHO regions, described examples of MOIDs involving their own or a colleague's patients. Respondents provided case summaries and answered questions regarding harm and factors contributing to the event. Results Of 1594 physicians surveyed, 412 (25.8%) responded (mean age=43 years (SD=9.2), 42.0% female, mean years in practice=12 (SD=9.0)). Patient presentations involving MOIDs had common undifferentiated symptoms at initial presentation, including abdominal pain (21.1%), fever (17.2%) and vomiting (16.5%). Patients were discharged from the ED with commonly reported diagnoses, including acute gastroenteritis (16.7%), viral syndrome (10.2%) and constipation (7.0%). Most reported MOIDs (65%) were detected on ED return visits (46% within 24 hours and 76% within 72 hours). The most common reported MOID was appendicitis (11.4%), followed by brain tumour (4.4%), meningitis (4.4%) and non-accidental trauma (4.1%). More than half (59.1%) of the reported MOIDs involved the patient/parent-provider encounter (eg, misinterpreted/ignored history or an incomplete/inadequate physical examination). Types of MOIDs and contributing factors did not differ significantly between countries. More than half of patients had either moderate (48.7%) or major (10%) harm due to the MOID. Conclusions An international cohort of paediatric ED physicians reported several MOIDs, often in children who presented to the ED with common undifferentiated symptoms. Many of these were related to patient/parent-provider interaction factors such a

IMPORTANCE Little is known about the risk factors for, and the risk of, developing post-COVID-19 conditions (PCCs) among children. OBJECTIVES To estimate the proportion of SARS-CoV-2-positive children with PCCs 90 days after a positive test result, to compare this proportion with SARS-CoV-2-negative children, and to assess factors associated with PCCs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective cohort study, conducted in 36 emergency departments (EDs) in 8 countries between March 7, 2020, and January 20, 2021, included 1884 SARS-CoV-2-positive children who completed 90-day follow-up; 1686 of these children were frequency matched by hospitalization status, country, and recruitment date with 1701 SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. EXPOSURE SARS-CoV-2 detected via nucleic acid testing. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Post-COVID-19 conditions, defined as any persistent, new, or recurrent health problems reported in the 90-day follow-up survey. RESULTS Of 8642 enrolled children, 2368 (27.4%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive, among whom 2365 (99.9%) had index ED visit disposition data available; among the 1884 children (79.7%) who completed follow-up, the median age was 3 years (IQR, 0-10 years) and 994 (52.8%) were boys. A total of 110 SARS-CoV-2-positive children (5.8%; 95% CI, 4.8%-7.0%) reported PCCs, including 44 of 447 children (9.8%; 95% CI, 7.4%-13.0%) hospitalized during the acute illness and 66 of 1437 children (4.6%; 95% CI, 3.6%-5.8%) not hospitalized during the acute illness (difference. 5.3%; 95% CI, 2.5%-8.5%). Among SARS-CoV-2-positive children, the most common symptom was fatigue or weakness (21 [1.1%]). Characteristics associated with reporting at least 1 PCC at 90 days included being hospitalized 48 hours or more compared with no hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.67 [95% CI, 1.63-4.38]); having 4 or more symptoms reported at the index ED visit compared with 1 to 3 symptoms (4-6 symptoms: aOR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.28-4.31]; >= 7 symptoms: aOR, 4.59 [95% CI

IMPORTANCE Little is known about the risk factors for, and the risk of, developing post-COVID-19 conditions (PCCs) among children. OBJECTIVES To estimate the proportion of SARS-CoV-2-positive children with PCCs 90 days after a positive test result, to compare this proportion with SARS-CoV-2-negative children, and to assess factors associated with PCCs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective cohort study, conducted in 36 emergency departments (EDs) in 8 countries between March 7, 2020, and January 20, 2021, included 1884 SARS-CoV-2-positive children who completed 90-day follow-up; 1686 of these children were frequency matched by hospitalization status, country, and recruitment date with 1701 SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. EXPOSURE SARS-CoV-2 detected via nucleic acid testing. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Post-COVID-19 conditions, defined as any persistent, new, or recurrent health problems reported in the 90-day follow-up survey. RESULTS Of 8642 enrolled children, 2368 (27.4%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive, among whom 2365 (99.9%) had index ED visit disposition data available; among the 1884 children (79.7%) who completed follow-up, the median age was 3 years (IQR, 0-10 years) and 994 (52.8%) were boys. A total of 110 SARS-CoV-2-positive children (5.8%; 95% CI, 4.8%-7.0%) reported PCCs, including 44 of 447 children (9.8%; 95% CI, 7.4%-13.0%) hospitalized during the acute illness and 66 of 1437 children (4.6%; 95% CI, 3.6%-5.8%) not hospitalized during the acute illness (difference. 5.3%; 95% CI, 2.5%-8.5%). Among SARS-CoV-2-positive children, the most common symptom was fatigue or weakness (21 [1.1%]). Characteristics associated with reporting at least 1 PCC at 90 days included being hospitalized 48 hours or more compared with no hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.67 [95% CI, 1.63-4.38]); having 4 or more symptoms reported at the index ED visit compared with 1 to 3 symptoms (4-6 symptoms: aOR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.28-4.31]; >= 7 symptoms: aOR, 4.59 [95% CI

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, a public–private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a second meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds to develop recommendations for procedural sedation research. The previous meeting addressed efficacy and patient- and/or family-centered outcomes. This meeting addressed issues of safety, which was defined as “the avoidance of physical or psychological harm.” A literature review identified 133 articles addressing safety measures in procedural sedation clinical trials. After basic reporting of vital signs, the most commonly measured safety parameter was oxygen saturation. Adverse events were inconsistently defined throughout the studies. Only 6 of the 133 studies used a previously validated measure of safety. The meeting identified methodological problems associated with measuring infrequent adverse events. With a consensus discussion, a set of core and supplemental measures were recommended to code for safety in future procedural clinical trials. When adopted, these measures should improve the integration of safety data across studies and facilitate comparisons in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.