Importance of specialized paediatric and neonatal transport. Current situation in Spain: Towards a more equitable and universal future.

Specialized paediatric and neonatal transport is a useful and essential resource in the interhospital transfer of these patients. It allows bringing the material and personal resources of an intensive care unit closer to the regional hospitals where the patient can be found. The benefits of these teams are very well demonstrated in the literature. These units should be part of the emergency systems, while it would be recommended that they be staff integrated in the tertiary hospitals, in order to maintain the necessary skills and competencies. The team, made up of physicians, nurses and emergency medical technicians, must master both the pathophysiology of transport and that of the critical patient in this age range. A high quality of both human and care is important, so continuous training and periodic recycling will be essential to be compliant with the quality indicators in transport. Likewise, it is essential to have specific vehicles adapted to this function, which allow carrying the wide variety of necessary material, as well as the electromedicine that is required. However, in Spain this paediatric and neonatal transport model is not standardized and therefore is not homogeneous: there are different models that do not always provide adequate quality, making it necessary to implement specialized units throughout the country to guarantee sanitary transport quality to any critical child or neonate.

Quality indicators in interhospital transport: Multicentre project.

INTRODUCTION: Interhospital transport is carried out by variable teams in different regions of our country, and this makes quality evaluation and benchmarking complicated. Project objective: Select and define a consensual list of quality measurement that may be used by national transport units, whether specialised or not. METHODS: Initial set of quality indicators was proposed by coordinators (members of representative specialised transport units in Spain). Evaluation by selected transport specialists from participating units and SECIP (Society of Paediatric Intensive Care) and SENeo (Spanish Neonatology Society) work teams. Selection of definitive indicators by Delphi method according to relevance and feasibility. RESULTS: A total of 35 quality indicators were included in the initial set. Evaluation was carried out by 22 specialists from 7 transport teams. In a first round, 4 indicators were consensually included in the definitive list. Results for the rest of metrics and comments were sent to all participants, and after a second assessment, 11 other indicators reached enough consensus. After list accomplishment, a consensual final definition for every indicator was established. CONCLUSIONS: Using a consensual research method, a list of 15 common indicators was obtained, which may be used by specialised transport teams in our country, and by non-specialised clinics in charge of interhospital paediatric transport. It will allow individual performance to be assessed, as well as benchmarking, in order to find improvement opportunities and ensure the highest quality during interhospital transport.

[Importance of specialized paediatric and neonatal transport. Current situation in Spain: Towards a more equitable and universal future]. / Importancia del transporte pediátrico y neonatal especializado. Situación actual en España: Hacia un futuro más equitativo y universal.

Specialized paediatric and neonatal transport is a useful and essential resource in the interhospital transfer of these patients. It allows bringing the material and personal resources of an intensive care unit closer to the regional hospitals where the patient can be found. The benefits of these teams are very well demonstrated in the literature. These units should be part of the emergency systems, while it would be recommended that they would be staff integrated in the tertiary hospitals, in order to maintain the necessary skills and competencies. The team, made up of physicians, nurses and emergency medical technicians, must master both the pathophysiology of transport and that of the critical patient in this age range. A high-quality of both human and care is important, so continuous training and periodic recycling will be essential to be compliant with the quality indicators in transport. Likewise, it is essential to have specific vehicles adapted to this function, which allow carrying the wide variety of necessary material, as well as the electromedicine that is required. However, in Spain this paediatric and neonatal transport model is not standardized and, therefore, is not homogeneous: there are different models that do not always provide adequate quality, making it necessary to implement specialized units throughout the country to guarantee sanitary transport quality to any critical child or neonate.

Is a nasopharyngeal tube effective as interface to provide bi-level noninvasive ventilation?

BACKGROUND: The nasopharyngeal tube (NT) is a potential interface for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) available in all health care centers. The aim of the study was to describe our experience in the use of the NT for bi-level NIV in infants and its effectiveness. METHODS: Prospective observational study from January 2007 to December 2010, including all patients ≤ 6 months old admitted to the pediatric ICU (PICU) and treated with NIV with two levels of pressure using the NT. Clinical data collected before starting NIV, and at 2, 8, 12 and 24 h, were analyzed following NIV initiation: first-line or initial NIV (i-NIV), elective postextubation NIV (e-NIV), and rescue postextubation NIV (r-NIV). The need for intubation was considered to be NIV failure. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one episodes of NIV were included in the study, with 65% of patients having bronchiolitis. e-NIV was most frequently used (48%) (i-NIV 44%, r-NIV 8%), and the failure rate, 27% in total, was highest in the i-NIV group (37%) (e-NIV 18%, r-NIV 25%). Case patients with successful outcomes had shorter PICU stays (8.5 vs. 13 d, P = .001) and hospital stays (17 vs. 23 d, P = .03) stays. The NT needed to be changed for another interface in only 5 case patients, few complications (4 of 151 patients) were observed, and mortality (2 of 151 patients) was unrelated to NIV. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the NT showed 73% effectiveness, with few complications. The effectiveness was higher in e-NIV than i-NIV.