Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this article, the 5 things to know about emergency procedural sedation in children are presented. These are the following: 1. Emergency procedural sedation is safe; 2. Consider sedation with a single agent, such as ketamine, over drug combinations; 3. Premedication with ondansetron reduces postsedation nausea and vomiting; 4. Premedication with opioids is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes; 5. Fasting status is not an independent predictor for aspiration.

Saliva sampling is a promising alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing, but acceptability data is lacking. We characterize the acceptability of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs for primary decision makers and their children after experiencing both testing modalities. We administered a cross-sectional survey to participants aged 6-to-17 years and their primary decision makers at an Ottawa community COVID-19 testing centre in March 2021. Included were participants meeting local guidelines for testing. Excluded were those identified prior to participation as having inability to complete the consent, sampling, or survey process. Acceptability in multiple hypothetical scenarios was rated using a 5-point Likert scale. Pain was measured using the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R). Preference for testing was assessed with direct binary questions. 48 participants and 48 primary decision makers completed the survey. Nasopharyngeal swab acceptability differed between scenarios, ranging 79% [95%CI: 66, 88] to 100% [95%CI: 95, 100]; saliva sampling acceptability was similar across scenarios, ranging 92% [95%CI: 82, 97] to 98% [95%CI: 89, 99]. 58% of youth described significant pain with nasopharyngeal swabbing, versus none with saliva sampling. 90% of children prefer saliva sampling. 66% of primary decision makers would prefer nasopharyngeal swabbing if it were 10% more sensitive. Though youth prefer saliva sampling over nasopharyngeal swabs, primary decision makers present for testing remain highly accepting of both. Acceptance of nasopharyngeal swabs, however, varies with the testing indication and is influenced by perceived test accuracy. Understanding factors that influence sampling acceptance will inform more successful testing strategies.

Lacerations are the most common traumatic reason for children to visit an emergency department (ED), accounting for almost half of all procedures performed. Children experience considerable distress during laceration repair, despite routine application of local anesthetic. Pharmacologic anxiolysis may mitigate the negative practice of forcefully restraining a child, however, evidence for the most effective agent is lacking. We aim to determine the most effective anxiolytic agent for laceration repair in children. This is a multicentre, phase III, three-arm, adaptive, randomized, open-label, trial. We will include children 2-12 years with a single laceration requiring suture repair in the ED. Participants will be randomized to receive intranasal dexmedetomidine (IND) 3 mcg/kg, intranasal midazolam (INM) 0.4 mg/kg, or inhaled 50% nitrous oxide (N2O). The primary outcome is the weighted mean anxiolysis score using the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress - Revised (OSBD-R) from initial positioning to tying of the last suture. Secondary outcomes include need for additional anxiolytic, need for physical restraint, adverse events (AEs), and delayed maladaptive behaviors. The primary analysis will be conducted by intention-to-treat. Results will report posterior means, standard deviations (SDs), and 95% high density posterior credible intervals for Total Distress Score on the OSBD-R. We will rank interventions based on the probability that an intervention is superior (Pbest) and the Surface Area Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) to indicate relative anxiolytic efficacy. The mean difference in Total Distress Score and secondary outcomes will be estimated using Bayesian models. Ethics approval will be obtained from institutional review boards of the participating sites. Informed consent will be obtained from guardians of all participants in addition to assent from all participants. Study data will be submitted for publication. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05383495.

IntroductionSuicidal ideation (SI) is a common and severe cause of morbidity in adolescents. Patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) for care, yet there is no acute therapeutic intervention for SI. A single dose of intravenous ketamine has demonstrated efficacy in rapidly reducing SI in adults; however, ketamine has not been studied in paediatrics. We aim to determine the feasibility of a trial of a single intravenous ketamine dose to reduce SI for patients in the paediatric ED.Methods and analysisThis will be a single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm pilot trial of intravenous ketamine for ED treatment of SI in a paediatric population. Intervention: one intravenous dose of 0.5 mg/kg of ketamine (max 50 mg), over 40 min. Placebo: one intravenous dose of 0.5 mL/kg (max 50 mL) of normal saline, over 40 min. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. SI severity will be measured at baseline, 40 min, 80 min, 120 min, 24 hours and 7 days. We aim to recruit 20 participants. The primary feasibility outcome is the proportion of eligible patients who complete the study protocol. We will pilot three SI severity tools and explore the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the intervention.Ethics and disseminationThis study will be conducted according to Canadian Biomedical Research Tutorial, international standards of Good Clinical Practice and the Health Canada, Food and Drug Act, Part C, Division 5. The study documents have been approved by the CHEO Research Institute Research Ethics Board (CHEO REB (23/02E)). Participants must provide free and informed consent to participate. If incapable due to age, assenting participants with parental/legal guardian consent may participate. On completion, we will endeavour to present results at international conferences, and publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. Participants will receive a results letter.Trial registration number NCT05468840.

Bronchiolitis exerts a high burden on children, their families and the healthcare system. The Canadian Bronchiolitis Epinephrine Steroid Trial (CanBEST) assessed whether administering epinephrine alone, dexamethasone alone, or in combination (EpiDex) could reduce bronchiolitis-related hospitalizations among children less than 12 months of age compared to placebo. CanBEST demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in 7-day hospitalization risk with EpiDex in an unadjusted analysis but not after adjustment. To explore the probability that EpiDex results in a reduction in hospitalizations using Bayesian methods. Using prior distributions that represent varying levels of preexisting enthusiasm or skepticism, i.e., how confident or doubtful one is that EpiDex may reduce hospitalizations, and information about the treatment effect before data were collected, the posterior distribution of the relative risk of hospitalization compared to placebo was determined. The probability that the treatment effect is less than 1, 0.9, 0.8 and 0.6, indicating increasing reductions in hospitalization risk, are computed alongside 95% credible intervals. Combining a minimally informative prior distribution with the data from CanBEST provides comparable results to the original analysis. Unless strongly skeptical views about the effectiveness of EpiDex were considered, the 95% credible interval for the treatment effect lies below 1, indicating a reduction in hospitalizations. There is a 90% probability that EpiDex results in a clinically meaningful reduction in hospitalization of 10% even when incorporating skeptical views, with a 67% probability when considering strongly skeptical views. A Bayesian analysis demonstrates a high chance that EpiDex reduces hospitalization rates for bronchiolitis, although strongly skeptical individuals may require additional evidence to change practice. Clinical Trial registry name, registration number: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN56745572.

The diagnosis of pediatric pneumonia and determination of the likely pathogen are complicated as the clinical picture overlaps with other respiratory illnesses, interpretation of radiographs is subjective, and laboratory results are rarely diagnostic. This study was designed to describe the relative rates of bacterial and viral pneumonia in the pediatric Emergency Department (ED), determine the accuracy of pediatric ED physicians' ability to diagnose pneumonia and distinguish bacterial from viral etiology, and to determine clinical and laboratory predictors of bacterial pneumonia. Children 3 months to 16 years of age presenting to seven Canadian pediatric EDs before the COVID-19 pandemic with fever and cough who had a chest radiograph performed for possible pneumonia were enrolled and underwent standardized clinical investigations. An expert panel was convened and reached a Consensus Diagnosis of typical or atypical bacterial pneumonia, viral pneumonia or not pneumonia for each case. The expert panel assessed 247 cases with the Consensus Diagnosis being typical bacterial pneumonia (N = 44(18%)), atypical bacterial pneumonia (N = 18(7%)), viral pneumonia (N = 46(19%)) and no pneumonia (N = 139(56%)). Treating ED physician diagnoses were typical bacterial pneumonia (N = 126(51%)), atypical bacterial pneumonia (N = 3(1%)), viral pneumonia (N = 10(4%)) and no pneumonia (N = 108(44%)) with low agreement between a diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia by the ED physician and the panel's Consensus Diagnosis (Kappa 0.15 (95% CI 0.08, 0.21)). Cut off values that predicted bacterial pneumonia as the Consensus Diagnosis were ESR ≥ 47 mm/hour, CRP ≥ 42 mg/L and procalcitonin ≥0.85 ng/m. Age greater than 5 years and cough for 5 or more days also predict bacterial pneumonia. In this cohort, pediatric ED physicians over-diagnosed typical bacterial pneumonia and underdiagnosed viral and atypical bacterial pneumonia. Bacterial pneumonia is most likely in children over 5 years of age, with cough for 5 or more days and/or with elevated inflammatory markers.

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. 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. 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). Young age, specifically between 13 and 24 months, was not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of adverse events.

IntroductionUp to 40% of orthopaedic injuries in children require a closed reduction, almost always necessitating procedural sedation. Intravenous ketamine is the most commonly used sedative agent. However, intravenous insertion is painful and can be technically difficult in children. We hypothesise that a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus intranasal ketamine (Ketodex) will be non-inferior to intravenous ketamine for effective sedation in children undergoing a closed reduction.Methods and analysisThis is a six-centre, four-arm, adaptive, randomised, blinded, controlled, non-inferiority trial. We will include children 4–17 years with a simple upper limb fracture or dislocation that requires sedation for a closed reduction. Participants will be randomised to receive either intranasal Ketodex (one of three dexmedetomidine and ketamine combinations) or intravenous ketamine. The primary outcome is adequate sedation as measured using the Paediatric Sedation State Scale. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, time to wakening and adverse effects. The results of both per protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be reported for the primary outcome. All inferential analyses will be undertaken using a response-adaptive Bayesian design. Logistic regression will be used to model the dose–response relationship for the combinations of intranasal Ketodex. Using the Average Length Criterion for Bayesian sample size estimation, a survey-informed non-inferiority margin of 17.8% and priors from historical data, a sample size of 410 participants will be required. Simulations estimate a type II error rate of 0.08 and a type I error rate of 0.047.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from Clinical Trials Ontario for London Health Sciences Centre and McMaster Research Ethics Board. Other sites have yet to receive approval from their institutions. Informed consent will be obtained from guardians of all participants in addition to assent from participants. Study data will be submitted for publication regardless of results.Trial registration numberNCT0419525.

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 suboptimal history and physical examination. Physicians’ personal experiences offer an underexplored source for investigating and mitigating diagnostic errors in the paediatric ED.