Search

Objective: To evaluate how social behaviors relate to SARS-CoV-2 test positivity across pediatric age groups., Methods: Multicenter, cross-sectional study recruiting children <18 years old tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in emergency departments between 2020 and 2022. We used multivariate logistic regression to assess how self-reported social behaviors affect SARS-CoV-2 test positivity across four age groups. Causal mediation analysis quantified how mask-wearing and presence of an infected close contact mediated the SARS-CoV-2 risk of given behaviors., Results: Seven thousand two hundred and seventy two children were enrolled and 1457 (20.0%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Attending a social gathering was associated with increased odds (aOR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.57) of SARS-CoV-2 positivity among children aged 5-<12 years. Those attending in-person school/daycare were less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 across all age categories. Attending childcare was associated with 16.3% (95% CI: -21.0%, -11.2%) and 9.0% (95% CI: -11.6%, -6.5%) reductions in the probability of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, with 53.5% (95% CI: 39.2%, 73.9%) and 22.8% (95% CI: 9.7%, 36.2%) of the effects being mediated by the presence of a close contact among <1 year and 1-<5 year age groups, respectively. Masking in public mediated the association between childcare attendance and SARS-CoV-2 positivity in children aged <1 year., Conclusions: Attending social gatherings increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 test positivity in 5-<12-year-old children, but in-person daycare/school was associated with a reduced odds of testing positive across all ages. Settings with high public health adherence (ie, schools) reduced the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, possibly from reduced close contact with SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2025 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Intranasal (IN) midazolam is the most common anxiolytic for children in the emergency department (ED), but evidence of benefit is conflicting. We synthesized the evidence on IN midazolam for procedural distress in children undergoing ED painful procedures., Methods: We included trials involving painful ED procedures in children 0-18 years involving IN midazolam. Primary outcome was procedural distress. We summarized results using Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," and "unfavorable" (p < 0.05), supporting IN midazolam or comparator, respectively, or "indeterminate" (unable to judge). Where possible, we pooled results using meta-analysis. Methodologic quality of evidence was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and GRADE system., Results: We included 41 trials (n = 2973 participants). Thirty trials involved intravenous insertion. IN midazolam was superior to placebo (RR = 7.2; 95% CI: 3.43, 15.25; 3 trials; I 2  = 0%). However, 56-90% of the IN midazolam group resisted the procedure. Focusing on the three trials that used validated measures, IN midazolam was "neutral" versus IN ketamine and either "neutral" or "unfavorable" versus IN dexmedetomidine. There was no difference in the proportion of children with a satisfactory distress score between IN midazolam and oral midazolam (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.73; 2 trials; I 2  = 53%), IN ketamine (RR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.25; 6 trials; I 2  = 0%), or IN dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.4; 95% CI: 0.17, 1.05; 3 trials; I 2  = 84%). Ten trials involved laceration repair. IN midazolam was "favorable" versus placebo; however, both groups scored in the anxious range. There was no difference in distress between IN midazolam and oral midazolam (SMD = 0.01; 95% CI:-0.32, 0.34; 2 trials; I 2  = 0%) (Fig. 3E) [64,65]. Using validated instruments, IN midazolam was "unfavorable" versus IN dexmedetomidine but "favorable" versus oral diazepam and placebo., Conclusions: There is limited methodologically rigorous evidence that IN midazolam is better than placebo for IV insertion and laceration repair. At the doses studied, preliminary evidence suggests that IN dexmedetomidine may be superior to IN midazolam for both IV insertion and laceration repair., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP)/ Association Canadienne de Médecine d'Urgence (ACMU).)

Objectives: Recent clinical practice guidelines recommend that decisions regarding lumbar puncture (LP) for febrile infants older than 28 days should no longer be based on urinalysis results, but rather independently determined by inflammatory markers and sometimes guided by shared decision-making (SDM). This study sought to assess management decisions for febrile infants aged 29 to 60 days with an abnormal urinalysis., Methods: A scenario-based survey was sent to emergency department physicians at all 15 Canadian tertiary pediatric centers. Participants were asked questions regarding management decisions when presented with a well-appearing febrile infant in the second month of life with either an abnormal or normal urinalysis., Results: Response rate was 50.2% (n = 116/231). Overall, few respondents would perform an LP based on either an abnormal or normal urinalysis alone (10.3% and 6.0%, respectively). However, regression analysis demonstrated that decisions regarding LP were influenced by urinalysis results ( P < 0.001), with respondents more likely to defer to inflammatory marker results for infants with a normal urinalysis result (57.8%) compared with those with an abnormal urinalysis (28.4%). Hospitalization (62.1%) and empiric antibiotic treatment by intravenous route (87.9%) were both frequent for low-risk infants with an abnormal urinalysis. Nearly half of respondents reported rarely (<25% of encounters) engaging families in SDM regarding LP decisions., Conclusions: Knowledge translation initiatives reflecting current evidence should target use of inflammatory markers rather than urinalysis results to guide decisions regarding LP. Efforts emphasizing outpatient management with oral antibiotics and SDM for low-risk infants with an abnormal urinalysis could also further align management with current evidence and guidelines., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Salter-Harris type 1 (SH1) fractures of the distal fibula are acute orthopedic injuries with tenderness over the physis without radiographic evidence of fracture. Our primary objective was to establish the accuracy of the physical examination performed by pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians in determining the location of the distal fibular physis compared to a criterion standard of ultrasound., Methods: This was a prospective, observational study at an urban academic pediatric emergency department of a convenience sample of children aged 4 to 10 years old between March 2019 and March 2020. A PEM physician or fellow examined the patient's distal fibula and marked the location of the physis with a marker. A study investigator scanned the distal fibula to establish the location of the physis on ultrasound and measured the distance between the clinician's estimated position and the actual sonographic position. We a priori defined a clinically accurate position as a distance of ≤5 mm. We compared the accuracy rate of physical examination to ultrasound landmarking using proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: We enrolled 71 patients, of whom 52 (73%) were male. The mean age was 6.7 years and the mean weight was 25.5 kg. Participating PEM physicians included 18 attending physicians and 2 fellows. The distal fibular physis was correctly identified in 24 patients, yielding an accuracy rate of 34% (95% CI 23%-46%). The mean distance between the physician's estimated position and the sonographic position was 7.4 mm (95% CI 6.4-8.4 mm)., Conclusions: PEM physicians were unable to accurately identify the distal fibular physis on physical examination., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest VD, VS, JSA, and SE do not report any conflicts of interest. DJK is on the medical advisory board of Clarius Mobile Health., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to outline the clinical conditions presenting to a Canadian pediatric emergency department (ED), survey the opinions of physician assistants (PAs) and emergency pediatricians to determine which conditions they consider could be managed by PAs, and to estimate the proportion of the total pediatric ED volume that PAs could potentially manage., Methods: We reviewed the 2007 British Columbia Children's Hospital database of ED visits to identify clinical presentation and chief complaint of all patients seen. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes were used to categorize the presenting complaint of each ED visit. Following categorization, the results were discussed by a focus group composed of pediatric emergency medicine-trained physicians and PAs, to review the list of chief complaints. We then surveyed via e-mailed questionnaire a group of emergency pediatricians (n = 17) and PAs (n = 5) to seek their opinion on the categories of clinical presentation appropriate for PA management., Results: Of 38,722 visits, 9.2% were triaged as "resuscitation" or "emergent." We sorted the remaining 35,077 ED visits into 57 clinical categories. More than 85% of respondents selected 30 clinical categories for PA management with physician supervision, representing 74% of the total ED volume. Of these, 3 were also deemed appropriate for PA management without direct physician supervision. There were statistically significant differences in mean length of stay, waiting time, and admission rates between the clinical conditions selected for PA involvement. However, the difference in waiting time was not clinically meaningful., Conclusions: A large proportion of pediatric ED visits are designated as semiurgent or nonurgent. Clinicians (ED physicians and PAs) thought that the majority of these ED visits could be managed by PAs.

This systematic review describes the role and impact of physician assistants (PAs) in the ED. It includes reports of surveys, retrospective and prospective studies as well as guidelines and reviews. Seven hundred and twelve studies were identified of which only 66 were included, and many of these studies were limited by methodological quality. Generally the use of PAs in the ED is modest with 13-18% of US EDs having PAs although academic medical centres report PA use in 65-68% of EDs. The evidence indicates that PAs are reliable in assessing certain medical complaints and performing procedures, and are well accepted by ED staff and patients alike. There is limited evidence as to whether PAs improve ED flow or are cost-effective. Future studies on work processes, cost-effectiveness, unfamiliar patients' willingness to be treated by non-physician providers, and ED physicians' acceptability of PAs are needed to inform and guide the integration of PAs into EDs., (© 2011 The Authors. EMA © 2011 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine.)