Search

Introduction: Procedural sedation and analgesia have become standard practice in paediatric emergency departments worldwide. Although generally regarded as safe, serious adverse events such as bradycardia, asystole, pulmonary aspiration, permanent neurological injury and death have been reported, but their incidence is unknown due to the infrequency of their occurrence and lack of surveillance of sedation safety. To improve our understanding of the safety, comparative effectiveness and variation in care in paediatric procedural sedation, we are establishing a multicentre patient registry with the goal of conducting regular and ongoing surveillance for adverse events in procedural sedation., Methods: This multicentre, prospective cohort study is enrolling patients under 18 years of age from six paediatric emergency departments across Canada. Data collection is fully integrated into clinical care and is performed electronically in real time by the healthcare professionals caring for the patient. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who experience a serious adverse event as a result of their sedation. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients who experience an adverse event that could lead to a serious adverse event, proportion of patients who receive a significant intervention in response to an adverse event, proportion of patients who experience a successful sedation, and proportion of patients who experience a paradoxical reaction to sedation. There is no predetermined end date for data collection., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained from participating sites. Results will be disseminated using a multifaceted knowledge translation strategy by presenting at international conferences, publication in peer-reviewed journals, and through established networks., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objectives: The objectives were to explore the tolerance of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians for risk in choosing when to perform procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and to describe adherence to preprocedural fasting guidelines and factors affecting the physicians' decisions., Methods: A survey of Canadian PEM physicians who perform PSA was conducted. Respondents were asked about their PSA practices. Risk tolerance was assessed using an economics-based stated preference elicitation method called a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Using a hypothetical clinical situation of a healthy child needing PSA, three fasting scenarios (ingestion of full meal < 2 hours ago, full meal between 2 and 4 hours ago, liquids less than 1 hour ago) were created. For each fasting scenario, 16-choice questions with varying numeric risks of major and minor adverse events were presented and respondents were asked whether they would administer PSA now or wait for guidelines to be met. In this exploratory study, choice data were analyzed using multivariate regression analysis, and preliminary inferential statistics are presented., Results: A total of 114 (63.6%) completed surveys were returned. Respondents were 54% male, were in practice for a median of 6-10 years, and reported following fasting guidelines 53% of the time. Most had institutional fasting policies (70%), used ketamine (in 78% of PSA by 95% of users), and identified patient variables (prolonged pain, parental concern) as more important than environmental variables (patient flow, use of resources) in deciding when to administer PSA. Both major and minor risks of adverse events affected the choice of whether to do immediate PSA or wait until fasting guidelines were met. A 0.1-percentage-point increase in the probability of a major adverse event reduced physician likelihood of performing immediate PSA before meeting fasting guidelines by 17.6 percentage points. In comparison, a 10-percentage-point increase in the probability of a minor adverse event reduced physician likelihood of performing immediate PSA by 17.2%. Respondents were less likely to perform PSA immediately if a child had a full meal < 2 hours ago versus 2-4 hours ago or liquids < 1 hour ago. Sex, highest level of postgraduate training, frequency of performing PSA, and experience with a prior adverse event did not affect the choice to do immediate PSA. Years in practice affected the decision, with those in practice for 6-10 years more likely to perform immediate PSA than those in practice for shorter or longer. Those who reported having an institutional fasting policy were less likely to perform immediate PSA., Conclusions: These results suggest that fasting guidelines are not strictly adhered to in Canadian pediatric emergency departments (EDs) currently, and there is some willingness of physicians to change their sedation practice in light of evidence from hypothetical surveillance data about risks. On the other hand, some physicians suggest that they will follow guidelines regardless of how low the estimated risk is from surveillance data. An understanding of how physicians respond to evidence about small risks and how the information is best understood by this population is interesting for knowledge translation if evidence-based practice guidelines for procedural sedation in the ED are developed in the future., (© 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

Children commonly require sedation and analgesia for procedures in the emergency department. Establishing accurate adverse event and complications rates from the available literature has been difficult because of the difficulty in aggregating results from previous studies that have used varied terminology to describe the same adverse events and outcomes. Further, serious adverse events occur infrequently, necessitating the study of large numbers of children to assess safety. These limitations prevent the establishment of a sufficiently large database on which evidence-based practice guidelines may be based. We assembled a panel of pediatric sedation researchers and experts to develop consensus-based recommendations for standardizing procedural sedation and analgesia terminology and reporting of adverse events. Our goal was to create a uniform reporting mechanism for future studies to facilitate the aggregation and comparison of results.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Relatively little is known about outcomes of procedural sedation in very young children. Our objective was to examine the association between procedural sedation in young children (≤ 2 years) and the incidence of sedation-related adverse events.Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of children 0 to 18 years undergoing parenteral procedural sedation in six Canadian pediatric emergency departments (ED). The primary risk factor was age ≤ 2 years. Secondary risk factors were sex, procedure type, pre-procedure and sedation medications. The outcomes examined were: serious adverse events (SAE), significant interventions, oxygen desaturation and vomiting.Results: Of the 6295 patients included, 946 (15%) were ≤2 years. Children 13-24 months comprised 90% of the young age group. Children ≤ 2 years were sedated most commonly for laceration repair (n = 450; 47.6%), while orthopedic reduction was most common in children > 2 (n = 3983; 74.5%). Ketamine was the most common medication in both groups, but was used more frequently in children ≤ 2 years (80.9% vs 58.9%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in the odds of SAE (OR 0.83, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.4 to 1.9), significant intervention (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.7) or oxygen desaturation (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.3) between age groups, however children ≤ 2 years vomited less frequently (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6).Conclusions: Young age, specifically between 13 and 24 months, was not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hand fractures and dislocations are common injuries in the pediatric population. This study aims to characterize the pediatric hand injuries that required closed reduction and identify those that required multiple reduction attempts. Methods : A retrospective cohort study was carried out in patients younger than 18 years of age with hand fractures or dislocations who underwent closed reduction in the emergency department (ED). Patients who ultimately required surgical reduction and fixation were not included. Results : Of the 310 hand injuries identified, 148 (114 fractures and 34 dislocations) underwent closed reduction in the ED; 7.4% of those required repeat reduction. Hand injuries that most often required repeat reduction included metacarpophalangeal joint dislocations (20.0%) and proximal phalanx neck (16.7%), metacarpal shaft (15.4%), metacarpal neck (6.2%), and proximal phalanx base (5.6%) fractures. No modifiable risk factors predicting the need for repeat reduction were identified. Conclusions : Some pediatric hand injuries are more likely to require repeat closed reduction by a hand surgeon. This retrospective study is the first step toward quality improvement as it provides opportunities for further research into the factors contributing to reductions that are unsuccessful at the first attempt. Identification of these factors and implementation of quality improvement measures are necessary to ensure the effective treatment of all pediatric hand injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The objective was to characterize the variations in practice in the diagnosis and management of children admitted to hospitals from Canadian pediatric emergency departments ( EDs) with suspected appendicitis, specifically the timing of surgical intervention, ED investigations, and management strategies. Methods Twelve sites participated in this retrospective health record review. Children aged 3 to 17 years admitted to the hospital with suspected appendicitis were eligible. Site-specific demographics, investigations, and interventions performed were recorded and compared. Factors associated with after-hours surgery were determined using generalized estimating equations logistic regression. Results Of the 619 children meeting eligibility criteria, surgical intervention was performed in 547 (88%). After-hours surgery occurred in 76 of the 547 children, with significant variation across sites (13.9%, 95% confidence interval = 7.1% to 21.6%, p < 0.001). The overall perforation rate was 17.4% (95 of 547), and the negative appendectomy rate was 6.8% (37 of 547), varying across sites (p = 0.004 and p = 0.036, respectively). Use of inflammatory markers (p < 0.001), blood cultures (p < 0.001), ultrasound (p = 0.001), and computed tomography (p = 0.001) also varied by site. ED administration of narcotic analgesia and antibiotics varied across sites (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively), as did the type of surgical approach (p < 0.001). After-hours triage had a significant inverse association with after-hours surgery (p = 0.014). Conclusions Across Canadian pediatric EDs, there exists significant variation in the diagnosis and management of children with suspected appendicitis. These results indicate that the best diagnostic and management strategies remain unclear and support the need for future prospective, multicenter studies to identify strategies associated with optimal patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify markers of overcrowding in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs) according to expert opinion and then to use statistical methods to further explore the underlying construct of overcrowding. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of all PED directors ( n = 12) and pediatric emergency medicine fellowship program directors ( n = 10) across Canada was conducted to elicit expert opinion on relevant markers of emergency department (ED) crowding. The list of markers was reduced to those specific to the ED for which data could be extracted from one tertiary care PED from an existing computerized patient tracking system. Data representing 2,190 consecutive shifts and 138,361 patient visits were collected between April 2005 and March 2007. Common factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the underlying factors that best represented overcrowding as determined by markers identified by experts in pediatric emergency medicine Results: The main markers of overcrowding identified by the survey included measures of patient volume (25%), ED operational processes (55%), and delays in transferring patients to inpatient beds (13%). Data collected on 41 markers were retained for the CFA. The results of the CFA indicated that the largest portion of variation in the data (48%) was accounted for by markers describing patient volumes and flow through the ED. Measures of admission delays accounted for a smaller proportion of variability (9%). Conclusions: The results suggest that for this tertiary PED, markers of ED operational processes and patient volume may be more relevant for determination of overcrowding than markers reflecting delays in transferring patients to inpatient beds. This study provides a foundation for further research on markers of overcrowding specific to the pediatric setting. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:151–156 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Clinical scoring systems attempt to improve the diagnostic accuracy of pediatric appendicitis. The Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) was the first score created specifically for children and showed excellent performance in the derivation study when administered by pediatric surgeons. The objective was to validate the score in a nonreferred population by emergency physicians (EPs). Methods: A convenience sample of children, 4–18 years old presenting to a pediatric emergency department (ED) with abdominal pain of less than 3 days’ duration and in whom the treating physician suspected appendicitis, was prospectively evaluated. Children who were nonverbal, had a previous appendectomy, or had chronic abdominal pathology were excluded. Score components (right lower quadrant and hop tenderness, anorexia, pyrexia, emesis, pain migration, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia) were collected on standardized forms by EPs who were blinded to the scoring system. Interobserver assessments were completed when possible. Appendicitis was defined as appendectomy with positive histology. Outcomes were ascertained by review of the pathology reports from the surgery specimens for children undergoing surgery and by telephone follow-up for children who were discharged home. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated. The overall performance of the score was assessed by a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: Of the enrolled children who met inclusion criteria ( n = 246), 83 (34%) had pathology-proven appendicitis. Using the single cut-point suggested in the derivation study (PAS 5) resulted in an unacceptably high number of false positives (37.6%). The score’s performance improved when two cut-points were used. When children with a PAS of ≤4 were discharged home without further investigations, the sensitivity was 97.6% with a NPV of 97.7%. When a PAS of ≥8 determined the need for appendectomy, the score’s specificity was 95.1% with a PPV of 85.2%. Using this strategy, the negative appendectomy rate would have been 8.8%, the missed appendicitis rate would have been 2.4%, and 41% of imaging investigations would have been avoided. Conclusions: The PAS is a useful tool in the evaluation of children with possible appendicitis. Scores of ≤4 help rule out appendicitis, while scores of ≥8 help predict appendicitis. Patients with a PAS of 5–7 may need further radiologic evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]