Search

Background. Some emergency medical services (EMS) systems transport infants with an apparent life-threatening event (ALTE) directly to hospitals capable of pediatric critical care (PCC) monitoring. Objective. To describe factors identifiable by EMS providers that distinguish ALTE patients who may require PCC monitoring and management. Methods. This was an observational analysis of ALTE patients who were transported by EMS and presented to four emergency departments (EDs). ED data were prospectively collected. Hospital records or reports from contacted parents were reviewed for interventions that mandated PCC management. We defined a priori the criteria by which PCC monitoring and management were required: if the subject needed 1) airway intervention with bag-valve-mask ventilation or advanced airway (e.g., endotracheal intubation) in the field, ED, or pediatric intensive care unit (PICU); 2) administration of vasopressors; 3) invasive monitoring; 4) surgery during the hospitalization; or 5) subspecialty consultation. Univariate analysis was performed to describe factors associated with requiring PCC management, and a multivariable model, accounting for within-hospital correlations, was developed. Results. A total of 513 patients were enrolled. Of these, 51 (9.9%) had an intervention warranting PCC management. Univariate predictors for requiring PCC management included prematurity, past medical history, resuscitation attempt, upper respiratory infection, apnea, previous ALTE, more than one ALTE in 24 hours, and cyanosis. The multivariable model yielded the following independent predictors for requiring PCC management: resuscitation attempt before EMS arrival, cyanosis, and more than one ALTE in 24 hours. This model demonstrated a sensitivity of 96.3%, a specificity of 25.8%, a negative predictive value of 98.3%, and a positive predictive value of 13.5%. Conclusion. Only 9.9% of infants presenting in the field with ALTE had an intervention warranting PCC management, suggesting that many ALTE patients may be safely transported to hospitals without PCC capability. This would allow for better resource utilization of specialty care hospitals and still provide an option for secondary transports for those few patients not correctly identified in the field as requiring PCC. History of resuscitation attempt, cyanosis, and more than one ALTE in 24 hours are independent risk factors for requiring PCC management. Key words: ALTE; apparent life-threatening event; transport decision; pediatric critical care; infants [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: We assessed racial differences in sepsis recognition in a pediatric emergency department (ED) with an established electronic sepsis alert system. METHODS: Quality-improvement data from June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017 was used in this retrospective cohort study. All ED visits were included for non-Hispanic black (NHB) and non-Hispanic white (NHW) patients. The sepsis pathway was activated through the alert, 2 stages and a huddle, or outside of the alert using clinician judgment alone. We evaluated racial differences in the frequency of alerts and sepsis pathway activation within and outside of the alert. Multivariable regression adjusted for high-risk condition, sex, age, and insurance. RESULTS: There were 97 338 ED visits: 56 863 (58.4%) and 23 008 (23.6%) from NHBs and NHWs, respectively. NHWs were more likely than NHBs to have a positive second alert (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.8). NHWs were more likely than NHBs to have the sepsis pathway activated (aOR 1.4; 95% CI 1.02-2.1). Of those treated within the alert, there was no difference in pathway activation (aOR 0.93; 95% CI 0.62-1.4). Of those recognized by clinicians when the alert did not fire, NHWs were more likely than NHBs to be treated (aOR 3.4; 95% CI 1.8-6.4). CONCLUSIONS: NHWs were more likely than NHBs to be treated for sepsis, although this difference was specifically identified in the subset of patients treated for sepsis outside of the alert. This suggests that an electronic alert reduces racial differences compared with clinician judgment alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]