Search

Objectives: To determine the association between neighborhood marginalization and rates of pediatric ED visits in Ottawa, Ontario. Secondary objectives investigated if the association between neighborhood marginalization and rates varied by year, acuity, and distance to hospital. Methods: We calculated rates of pediatric ED visits per 1000 person-years for census dissemination areas within 100 km of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario for patients < 18 years old from January 2018 through December 2020. The 2016 Ontario Marginalization Index categorized neighborhoods along quintiles of residential instability, material deprivation, ethnic concentration, and dependency. Generalized mixed-effects models determined the incidence rate ratios of pediatric ED visits for each quintile of marginalization; multivariate models were used to control for year of presentation and distance to hospital. Analysis was repeated for low versus high acuity ED visits. Results: There were 154,146 ED visits from patients in 2055 census dissemination areas within 100 km of CHEO from 2018 to 2020. After controlling for year and distance from hospital in multivariate analyses, there were higher rates of pediatric ED visits for dissemination areas with high residential instability, high material deprivation, and low ethnic concentration. These findings did not change according to visit acuity. Conclusions: Neighborhood residential instability and material deprivation should be considered when locating alternatives to emergency care.

14% of children with SARS-CoV-2 infections had radiographic pneumonia. Hypoxemia, cough, higher temperature, and older age were associated with pneumonias. In children tested, SARS-CoV-2 test results were not associated with radiographic pneumonia.

To determine the optimal sedative dose of intranasal dexmedetomidine for children undergoing laceration repair.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for N2O for distress and pain in children. Study design: We included trials of N2O in participants 0–21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.’s classification of “neutral” (p ≥ 0.05), “favorable,” or “unfavorable” (p < 0.05, supporting N2O or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively. Results: We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0–100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% N2O (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I2= 0%) and 50% N2O plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I2= 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% N2O was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I2= 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, N2O was “favorable” versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but “neutral” versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), N2O was “neutral” versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), N2O was “favorable” versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), N2O was “neutral” versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), N2O plus EMLA was “favorable” versus N2O and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of N2O included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with N2O alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus N2O plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and N2O plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)). Conclusions: There is sufficient evidence to recommend N2O plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.

1 La sedation procedurale a I'urgence est sure. Environ 1 % des enfants amenes a l'urgence regoivent une sedation procedurale avant une intervention douloureuse comme la suture d'une laceration, l'incision [...]

1 Emergency procedural sedation is safe About 1% of children who visit an emergency department receive procedural sedation for painful procedures, including laceration repair, abscess incision and drainage, and orthopedic [...]

Les systèmes de santé et les travailleurs de la santé se sont rapidement adaptés à la prestation des soins virtuels pendant cette période sans précédent. Les programmes cliniques ont adopté divers modèles de soins virtuels pour maintenir l’accès, économiser l’équipement de protection individuelle et limiter la propagation des maladies infectieuses. Dans le présent article, les auteurs décrivent d’abord le contexte de prestation des soins pédiatriques pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 au Canada, laquelle a propulsé la prestation des soins virtuels. Ils résument ensuite la préparation, la mise en œuvre et les effets bénéfiques des programmes de soins virtuels utilisés actuellement au Centre hospitalier pour enfants de l’est de l’Ontario (CHEO), tant pour les patients hospitalisés que non hospitalisées, notamment dans les cliniques ambulatoires, aux urgences et au sein du programme de santé mentale. Ils soulignent les moyens transférables et particuliers qu’a retenus le CHEO pour intégrer la prestation des soins virtuels, que ce soit au moyen de sa structure de gouvernance, de la participation des intervenants – y compris les patients, les proches, les travailleurs de la santé et le personnel –, de la préparation et de l’utilisation des outils de télésanté et des approches novatrices de soins aux patients qui ont besoin d’une évaluation physique. Ils concluent en présentant leur vision de l’avenir des soins virtuels, qui feront partie de l’arsenal des soins pédiatriques après la pandémie de COVID-19, mais qui devront être soumis à un cadre commun d’évaluation.Fait important, la mise en œuvre rapide d’un modèle de soins principalement virtuels au CHEO a favorisé le maintien d’un volume élevé de soins pédiatriques de qualité. Selon les auteurs, bon nombre de ces programmes devraient être conservés et le seront bel et bien après la pandémie. Il est essentiel d’adopter une approche exhaustive et unifiée de l’évaluation pour obtenir des résultats constructifs qui inspireront des modèles de prestation des soins pérennes, incluant les soins virtuels, et qui contribueront à garantir le meilleur pronostic possible pour les patients.

Health care systems and providers have rapidly adapted to virtual care delivery during this unprecedented time. Clinical programs initiated a variety of virtual care delivery models to maintain access to care, preserve personal protective equipment, and minimize infectious disease spread. Herein, we first describe the context within paediatric health delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada that fueled the rise of virtual care delivery. We then summarize the development, implementation, and beneficial impact of the innovative virtual care delivery programs currently in use at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) for both inpatient and outpatient care, specifically in our ambulatory clinics, emergency department, and mental health program. We highlight the transferable unique ways CHEO has integrated virtual care delivery through our governance structure, stakeholder engagement including patient, caregivers and health care providers and staff, development, and use of eHealth tools and novel approaches for patient care requiring physical assessment. We conclude with our vision for the future of virtual care, one component of paediatric care delivery in the post-COVID-19 era, which requires a common framework for virtual care evaluation.Importantly, rapid implementation of a primarily virtual care model at CHEO sustained high volume quality paediatric care. We believe many of these programs should and will remain in the post-pandemic era. A comprehensive, unified approach to evaluation is essential to yield meaningful results that inform sustainable care delivery models that integrate virtual care, and ultimately help ensure the best health outcomes for our patients.

Background: Hand fractures account for a significant proportion of all fractures seen in pediatric emergency departments (ED). It is essential for initial interventions to be successful to avoid unnecessary repeat interventions/complications. We sought to assess whether quality improvement interventions could decrease the rate of repeat reductions by plastic surgeons in our tertiary centre. Methods: We included patients ≤ 18 years of age who presented to ED with a hand injury from January 2014 to May 2019. Data were collected and presented over two plan-do-study-act cycles. The interventions comprised the dissemination of previous research identifying hand injuries requiring repeat reduction at our centre and commencement of a quality improvement initiative that coincided with hiring of a fellowship-trained pediatric hand surgeon and the implementation of an electronic medical record. In the second plan-do-study-act cycle, we implemented formal educational workshops for ED physicians and a standardized flowsheet in our electronic medical record to track patients with hand injuries. Results: We identified 272 hand injuries (136 in cycle 1, 136 in cycle 2) from January 2014 to May 2019. As a result of the implemented quality improvement initiatives, the proportion of hand injuries requiring repeat reduction decreased from 8.7% (n= 8) to 3.0% (n= 2) during cycle 1. This improvement was sustained during the 17-month-long (November 2017–May 2019) second cycle (3.0%, n= 6). Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of multifaceted interventions to achieve improved patient care, specifically the potential impact of specialized physicians, informal feedback and education, formal teaching workshops, and electronic medical records.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

This substudy of a prospective case-ascertained household transmission study investigated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction–positive individuals without antibody development and factors associated with nonseroconversion. Approximately 1 of 8 individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 did not seroconvert. Children, particularly the youngest, were approximately half as likely to seroconvert compared with adults. Apart from the absence of fever/chills, individual symptoms did not strongly predict nonseroconversion.

Objectives: Intranasal dexmedetomidine is a potentially effective anxiolytic but its role in pediatric laceration repair is only emerging. Future trials and clinical adoption of intranasal dexmedetomidine depend on understanding pediatric emergency providers’ practice patterns surrounding anxiolysis and perceived barriers to intranasal dexmedetomidine for anxiolysis during suture repair in children. Our objectives were to characterize these parameters to inform future research and facilitate clinical adoption. Methods: We conducted an online survey of pediatric emergency physician members of Pediatric Emergency Research Canada from September to December 2020. Questions pertained to perceptions of anxiolysis for suture repair, with a focus on intranasal dexmedetomidine. The primary outcome was anxiolysis for suture repair. Data were reported using descriptive statistics. Results: The response rate was 155/225 (68.9%). During suture repair, 127/148 (86%) believed that > 25% of young children experience distress requiring physical restraint. 116/148 (78%) would provide anxiolysis, mainly intranasal benzodiazepines (100/148, 68%). Only 6/148 (4%) would provide intranasal dexmedetomidine but 95/148 (64%) would consider it if there was evidence of benefit. The most common perceived barriers to intranasal dexmedetomidine included inadequate personal experience (114/145, 79%) and lack of access (60/145, 41%). Conclusions: Most Canadian pediatric emergency providers believe that laceration repair in a young child is distressing. Despite questionable efficacy, most would provide intranasal benzodiazepines, but would consider intranasal dexmedetomidine if there was evidence of benefit.

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.

IMPORTANCE: It is not clear whether adherence to preprocedural fasting guidelines prevent pulmonary aspiration and associated adverse outcomes during emergency department (ED) sedation of children. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between preprocedural fasting duration and the incidence of sedation-related adverse outcomes in a large sample of children. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study of children aged 0 to 18 years who received procedural sedation for a painful procedure in 6 Canadian pediatric EDs from July 2010 to February 2015. The primary risk factor was preprocedural fasting duration. Secondary risk factors were age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, preprocedural and sedation medications, and procedure type. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four outcomes were examined: (1) pulmonary aspiration, (2) the occurrence of any adverse event, (3) serious adverse events, and (4) vomiting. RESULTS: A total of 6183 children with a median age of 8.0 years (interquartile range, 4.0-12.0 years), of whom 6166 (99.7%) had healthy or mild systemic disease (American Society of Anesthesiologists levels I or II), were included in the analysis. Of these, 2974 (48.1%) and 310 (5.0%) children did not meet American Society of Anesthesiologists fasting guidelines for solids and liquids, respectively. There were no cases of pulmonary aspiration. There were 717 adverse events (11.6%; 95% CI, 10.8%-12.4%), of which 68 (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.9%-1.3%) were serious adverse events and 315 (5.1%; 95% CI, 4.6%-5.7%) were vomiting. The odds ratio (OR) of occurrence of any adverse event, serious adverse events, and vomiting did not change significantly with each additional hour of fasting duration for both solids (any adverse event: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.02; serious adverse events, OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.07; vomiting: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) and liquids (any adverse event: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02; serious adverse events: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.95-1.07; vomiting: OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, there was no association between fasting duration and any type of adverse event. These findings do not support delaying sedation to meet established fasting guidelines.

IMPORTANCE: Procedural sedation for children undergoing painful procedures is standard practice in emergency departments worldwide. Previous studies of emergency department sedation are limited by their single-center design and are underpowered to identify risk factors for serious adverse events (SAEs), thereby limiting their influence on sedation practice and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence and risk factors associated with sedation-related SAEs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study was conducted in 6 pediatric emergency departments in Canada between July 10, 2010, and February 28, 2015. Children 18 years or younger who received sedation for a painful emergency department procedure were enrolled in the study. Of the 9657 patients eligible for inclusion, 6760 (70.0%) were enrolled and 6295 (65.1%) were included in the final analysis. EXPOSURES: The primary risk factor was receipt of sedation medication. The secondary risk factors were demographic characteristics, preprocedural medications and fasting status, current or underlying health risks, and procedure type. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four outcomes were examined: SAEs, significant interventions performed in response to an adverse event, oxygen desaturation, and vomiting. RESULTS: Of the 6295 children included in this study, 4190 (66.6%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 8.0 (4.6) years. Adverse events occurred in 736 patients (11.7%; 95% CI, 6.4%-16.9%). Oxygen desaturation (353 patients [5.6%]) and vomiting (328 [5.2%]) were the most common of these adverse events. There were 69 SAEs (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.7%), and 86 patients (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.7%-2.1%) had a significant intervention. Use of ketamine hydrochloride alone resulted in the lowest incidence of SAEs (17 [0.4%]) and significant interventions (37 [0.9%]). The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with the type of sedation medication. Compared with ketamine alone, propofol alone (3.7%; odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% CI, 2.3-13.1) and the combinations of ketamine and fentanyl citrate (3.2%; OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.5-15.2) and ketamine and propofol (2.1%; OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.3-8.7) had the highest incidence of SAEs. The combinations of ketamine and fentanyl (4.1%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.8-8.1) and ketamine and propofol (2.5%; OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.8) had the highest incidence of significant interventions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The incidence of adverse sedation outcomes varied significantly with type of sedation medication. Use of ketamine only was associated with the best outcomes, resulting in significantly fewer SAEs and interventions than ketamine combined with propofol or fentanyl.