The Association between Pediatric Readiness and Mortality for Injured Children Treated at US Trauma Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To use updated 2021 weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (wPRS) data to identify a threshold level of trauma center emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Most children in the US receive initial trauma care at non-pediatric centers. The National Pediatric Readiness Project (NPRP) aims to ensure that all EDs are prepared to provide quality care for children. Trauma centers reporting the highest quartile of wPRS on the 2013 national assessment have been shown to have lower mortality. Significant efforts have been invested to improve pediatric readiness in the past decade. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort of trauma centers that completed the NPRP 2021 national assessment and contributed to the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) in 2019-21 was analyzed. Center-specific observed-to-expected mortality estimates for children (0-15y) were calculated using Pediatric TQIP models. Deterministic linkage was used for transferred patients to account for wPRS at the initial receiving center. Center-specific mortality odds ratios were then compared across quartiles of wPRS. RESULTS: 66,588 children from 630 centers with a median [IQR] wPRS of 79 [66-93] were analyzed. The average observed-to-expected odds of mortality (1.02 [0.97-1.06]) for centers in the highest quartile (wPRS≥93) was lower than any of the lowest three wPRS quartiles (1.19 [1.14-1.23](Q1), 1.29 [1.24-1.33](Q2), and 1.28 [1.19-1.36](Q3), all P <0.05). The presence of a pediatric-specific quality improvement plan was the domain with the strongest independent association with mortality (standardized beta -0.095 [-0.146--0.044]). CONCLUSION: Trauma centers should address gaps in pediatric readiness to include a pediatric-specific quality improvement plan and aim to achieve wPRS ≥93.

Emergency Department Pediatric Readiness Among US Trauma Centers: A Machine Learning Analysis of Components Associated With Survival.

OBJECTIVE: We used machine learning to identify the highest impact components of emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness for predicting in-hospital survival among children cared for in US trauma centers. BACKGROUND: ED pediatric readiness is associated with improved short-term and long-term survival among injured children and part of the national verification criteria for US trauma centers. However, the components of ED pediatric readiness most predictive of survival are unknown. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of injured children below 18 years treated in 458 trauma centers from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, matched to the 2013 National ED Pediatric Readiness Assessment and the American Hospital Association survey. We used machine learning to analyze 265 potential predictors of survival, including 152 ED readiness variables, 29 patient variables, and 84 ED-level and hospital-level variables. The primary outcome was in-hospital survival. RESULTS: There were 274,756 injured children, including 4585 (1.7%) who died. Nine ED pediatric readiness components were associated with the greatest increase in survival: policy for mental health care (+8.8% change in survival), policy for patient assessment (+7.5%), specific respiratory equipment (+7.2%), policy for reduced-dose radiation imaging (+7.0%), physician competency evaluations (+4.9%), recording weight in kilograms (+3.2%), life support courses for nursing (+1.0%-2.5%), and policy on pediatric triage (+2.5%). There was a 268% improvement in survival when the 5 highest impact components were present. CONCLUSIONS: ED pediatric readiness components related to specific policies, personnel, and equipment were the strongest predictors of pediatric survival and worked synergistically when combined.

Statewide Pediatric Facility Recognition Programs and Their Association with Pediatric Readiness in Emergency Departments in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the relationship between statewide pediatric facility recognition (PFR) programs and pediatric readiness in emergency departments (EDs) in the US. STUDY DESIGN: Data were extracted from the 2013 National Pediatric Readiness Project assessment (4083 EDs). Pediatric readiness was assessed using the weighted pediatric readiness score (WPRS) based on a 100-point scale. Descriptive statistics were used to compare WPRS between recognized and nonrecognized EDs and between states with or without a PFR program. A linear mixed model with WPRS was used to evaluate state PFR programs on pediatric readiness. RESULTS: Eight states were identified with a PFR program. EDs in states with a PFR program had a higher WPRS compared with states without a PFR program (overall a 9.1-point higher median WPRS; P < .001); EDs recognized in a PFR program had a 21.7-point higher median WPRS compared with nonrecognized EDs (P < .001); and between states with a statewide PFR program, there was high variability of participation within the states. We found state-level PFR programs predicted a higher WPRS compared with states without a PFR program (ß = 5.49; 95% CI 2.76-8.23). CONCLUSIONS: Statewide PFR programs are based on national guidelines and identify those EDs that adhere to a standard level of readiness for children. These statewide PFR initiatives are associated with higher pediatric readiness. As scalable strategies are needed to improve emergency care for children, our study suggests that statewide PFR programs may be one way to improve pediatric readiness and underscores the need for further implementation and evaluation.

Pediatric Readiness in Emergency Medical Services Systems.

This is a joint policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Emergency Physicians, Emergency Nurses Association, National Association of Emergency Medical Services Physicians, and National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians on pediatric readiness in emergency medical services systems.

Critical procedure performance in pediatric patients: Results from a national emergency medicine group.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the frequency of pediatric critical procedures performed in a national group of emergency physicians. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of an administrative billing and coding dataset for procedural performance documentation verification from 2014 to 2018. We describe and compare incident rates of pediatric (age <18 years) patient critical procedure performance by emergency physicians in general emergency departments (EDs), pediatric EDs, and freestanding ED/urgent care centers. Critical procedures were endotracheal intubation, electrical cardioversion, central venous placement, intraosseous access, and chest tube insertion. RESULTS: Among 2290 emergency physicians working in 186 EDs (1844 working in 129 general EDs, 125 in 8 pediatric EDs, and 321 in 49 freestanding EDs/urgent cares), a total of 2233 pediatric critical procedures were performed during the study period. Many physicians at general EDs and freestanding EDs/urgent cares performed zero pediatric procedures per year (53.9% and 89% respectively). Per 1000 ED visits seen (All patient ages), physicians working in general EDs performed fewer pediatric critical procedures than physicians in pediatric EDs (0.12/1000 visits vs 0.68/1000 visits; rate difference = 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.61). Per 1000 clinical hours worked, physicians working in general EDs performed 0.26 procedures compared to 1.66 for physicians in pediatric EDs (rate difference = 1.39; 95% CI 1.27-1.52). CONCLUSION: Pediatric critical procedures are rarely performed by emergency physicians and are exceedingly rare in general EDs and freestanding EDs/urgent cares. The rarity of performance of these skills has implications for ED pediatric readiness.

Prehospital Glucose Testing for Children with Seizures: A Proposed Change in Management.

OBJECTIVE: Many Emergency Medicine Services (EMS) protocols require point-of-care blood glucose testing (BGT) for any pediatric patient who presents with seizure or altered level of conscious. Few data describe the diagnostic yield of BGT when performed on all pediatric seizures regardless of presenting mental status. We analyzed a large single center dataset of pediatric patients presenting with prehospital seizures to determine the prevalence of hypoglycemic seizures and the utility of repeat BGT in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective, IRB-approved chart analysis of all pediatric patients (≤14 years) transported by EMS to the Harbor-UCLA pediatric ED over a 2-year period with a chief complaint of seizure. Cases were selected in which witnessed seizures had occurred in the field by family or EMS. Chart review included prehospital, nursing and physician records. Hypoglycemia was defined as blood glucose <60 mg/dL. Analysis included blood glucose, witnessed field seizure, initial mental status assessed by Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and further mental status assessments, along with age, sex, and medical history. Medical records were reviewed for subsequent BGT and patient outcome. RESULTS: A total 770 children were transported by EMS due to seizures. Four patients (0.5%) had recorded hypoglycemia in the field, yet only two received treatment to raise blood glucose. Additionally, one child (0.1%) was normoglycemic (81 mg/dL) in the field with hypoglycemia (43 mg/dL) in the ED but required no intervention. Two were found by EMS to have an ALOC (GCS ≤ 12) and hypoglycemia. Only the patient with hypoglycemia secondary to a suspected glipizide ingestion received ED glucose administration. The most common discharge diagnosis was simple febrile seizure (38.6%). CONCLUSION: Hypoglycemia in the pediatric seizure patient is extremely rare, thus universal field BGT has low utility and potential downstream effects. We propose a novel algorithm for the initial evaluation and management of prehospital pediatric seizures. Although limited to a retrospective analysis of a single medical center, our findings suggest the importance of reassessing prehospital seizure protocols. A larger patient sample should be studied to validate these findings and identify unique cases where glucose testing might be useful.

Resource Document: Coordination of Pediatric Emergency Care in EMS Systems.

BACKGROUND: Citing numerous pediatric-specific deficiencies within Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended that EMS systems appoint a pediatric emergency care coordinator (PECC) to provide oversight of EMS activities related to care of children, to promote the integration of pediatric elements into day-to-day services as well as local and/or regional disaster planning, and to promote pediatric education across all levels of EMS providers. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to describe the evidence for pediatric coordination across the emergency care continuum. The search strategy was developed by the investigators in consultation with a medical librarian and conducted in OVID, Medline, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from January 1, 1983 to January 1, 2016. All research articles that measured a patient-related or system-related outcome associated with pediatric coordination in the setting of emergency care, trauma, or disaster were included. Opinion articles, commentaries, and letters to the editors were excluded. Three investigators independently screened citations in a hierarchical manner and abstracted data. RESULTS: Of 149 identified titles, nine were included in the systematic review. The nine articles included one interventional study, five surveys, and three consensus documents. All articles favored the presence of pediatric coordination. The interventional study demonstrated improved documentation, clinical management, and staff awareness of high priority pediatric areas. CONCLUSION: The current literature supports the identification of pediatric coordination to facilitate the optimal care of children within EMS systems. In order for EMS systems to provide high quality care to children, pediatric components must be integrated into all aspects of care including day-to-day operations, policies, protocols, available equipment and medications, quality improvement efforts, and disaster planning. This systematic review and resource document serves as the basis for the National Association of EMS Physicians position statement entitled "Physician Oversight of Pediatric Care in Emergency Medical Systems."

Pediatric Readiness and Facility Verification.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We perform a needs assessment of pediatric readiness, using a novel scoring system in California emergency departments (EDs), and determine the effect of pediatric verification processes on pediatric readiness. METHODS: ED nurse managers from all 335 acute care hospital EDs in California were sent a 60-question Web-based assessment. A weighted pediatric readiness score (WPRS), using a 100-point scale, and gap analysis were calculated for each participating ED. RESULTS: Nurse managers from 90% (300/335) of EDs completed the Web-based assessment, including 51 pediatric verified EDs, 67 designated trauma centers, and 31 EDs assessed for pediatric capabilities. Most pediatric visits (87%) occurred in nonchildren's hospitals. The overall median WPRS was 69 (interquartile ratio [IQR] 57.7, 85.9). Pediatric verified EDs had a higher WPRS (89.6; IQR 84.1, 94.1) compared with nonverified EDs (65.5; IQR 55.5, 76.3) and EDs assessed for pediatric capabilities (70.7; IQR 57.4, 88.9). When verification status and ED volume were controlled for, trauma center designation was not predictive of an increase in the WPRS. Forty-three percent of EDs reported the presence of a quality improvement plan that included pediatric elements, and 53% reported a pediatric emergency care coordinator. When coordinator and quality improvement plan were controlled for, the presence of at least 1 pediatric emergency care coordinator was associated with a higher WPRS (85; IQR 75, 93.1) versus EDs without a coordinator (58; IQR 50.1, 66.9), and the presence of a quality improvement plan was associated with a higher WPRS (88; IQR 76.7, 95) compared with that of hospitals without a plan (62; IQR 51.2, 68.7). Of pediatric verified EDs, 92% had a quality improvement plan for pediatric emergency care and 96% had a pediatric emergency care coordinator. CONCLUSION: We report on the first comprehensive statewide assessment of "pediatric readiness" in EDs according to the 2009 "Guidelines for Care of Children in the Emergency Department." The presence of a pediatric readiness verification process, pediatric emergency care coordinator, and quality improvement plan for pediatric emergency care was associated with higher levels of pediatric readiness.

TEMPORARY REMOVAL: Quick Safety 71: Improving ED Pediatric Readiness Can Save Children's Lives.

The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Overcoming Vulnerabilities in Our Emergency Care System Through Pediatric Readiness.

Although children account for 20% of all emergency department (ED) visits, the majority of children seek emergency care in hospitals that see fewer than 10 children per day. The National Pediatric Readiness Project has defined key system-level standards for all EDs to safely care for ill and injured children. High pediatric readiness is associated with improvement in mortality for critically ill and injured children. However, to improve readiness and sustain system-level changes, hospitals must invest in pediatric champions and empower them to engage in continuous quality improvement. Finally, incorporating pediatric readiness into policy is crucial for its long-term sustainability.

Defining Levels of US Hospitals' Pediatric Capabilities.

Importance: Classifying hospitals across a wide range of pediatric capabilities, including medical, surgical, and specialty services, would improve understanding of access and outcomes. Objective: To develop a classification system for hospitals' pediatric capabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included data from 2019 on all acute care hospitals with emergency departments in 10 US states that treated at least 1 child per day. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2023 to February 2024. Exposure: Pediatric hospital capability level, defined using latent class analysis. The latent class model parameters were the presence or absence of 26 functional capabilities, which ranged from performing laceration repairs to performing organ transplants. A simplified approach to categorization was derived and externally validated by comparing each hospital's latent class model classification with its simplified classification using data from 3 additional states. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care utilization and structural characteristics, including inpatient beds, pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) beds, and referral rates (proportion of patients transferred among patients unable to be discharged). Results: Using data from 1061 hospitals (716 metropolitan [67.5%]) with a median of 2934 pediatric ED encounters per year (IQR, 1367-5996), the latent class model revealed 4 pediatric levels, with a median confidence of hospital assignment to level of 100% (IQR, 99%-100%). Of 26 functional capabilities, level 1 hospitals had a median of 24 capabilities (IQR, 21-25), level 2 hospitals had a median of 13 (IQR, 11-15), level 3 hospitals had a median of 8 (IQR, 6-9), and level 4 hospitals had a median of 3 (IQR, 2-3). Pediatric level 1 hospitals had a median of 66 inpatient beds (IQR, 42-86), level 2 hospitals had a median of 16 (IQR, 9-22), level 3 hospitals had a median of 0 (IQR, 0-6), and level 4 hospitals had a median of 0 (IQR, 0-0) (P < .001). Level 1 hospitals had a median of 19 PICU beds (IQR, 10-28), level 2 hospitals had a median of 0 (IQR, 0-5), level 3 hospitals had a median of 0 (IQR, 0-0), and level 4 hospitals had a median of 0 (IQR, 0-0) (P < .001). Level 1 hospitals had a median referral rate of 1% (IQR, 1%-3%), level 2 hospitals had a median of 25% (IQR, 9%-45%), level 3 hospitals had a median of 70% (IQR, 52%-84%), and level 4 hospitals had a median of 100% (IQR, 98%-100%) (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of hospitals from 10 US states, a system to classify hospitals' pediatric capabilities in 4 levels was developed and was associated with structural and health care utilization characteristics. This system can be used to understand and track national pediatric acute care access and outcomes.

Development of the National Prehospital Pediatric Readiness Project assessment.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States (US), the quality of care provided to children during emergencies is highly variable. Following implementation of the National Pediatric Readiness Project (NPRP), inclusive of two national online assessments of Emergency Departments (EDs), national organizations involved in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems convened to launch the Prehospital Pediatric Readiness Project (PPRP). The PPRP seeks to ensure high-quality pediatric prehospital emergency care for all children. One of the first priorities of PPRP is to assess the current level of pediatric readiness in EMS systems. The development of the first comprehensive national assessment of pediatric readiness in EMS systems is described. METHODS: The 2020 joint policy statement, "Pediatric Readiness in Emergency Medical Services Systems" and the associated prehospital pediatric readiness checklist served as the foundation for the PPRP assessment. Assessment questions and scoring algorithm were developed using a modified Delphi process. The PPRP Assessment was converted into an online format comprising a website (EMSpedsReady.org), the online assessment, a personalized gap report, and non-public Tableau data-monitoring dashboards. A directory of all eligible EMS agencies in the United Staters was created to track participation. A diverse cohort of 15 EMS agencies piloted of the assessment questions and the online version of the assessment. Feedback from the pilot was integrated. CONCLUSION: The inaugural PPRP Assessment was open access May through July 2024, and the results will be used to guide future PPRP efforts.

Emergency department pediatric readiness of United States trauma centers in 2021: Trauma center facility characteristics and opportunities for improvement.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness has been associated with lower mortality for injured children but has historically been suboptimal in non-pediatric trauma centers. Over the past decade, the National Pediatric Readiness Project (NPRP) has invested resources in improving ED pediatric readiness. This study aimed to quantify current trauma center pediatric readiness and identify associations with center-level characteristics to target further efforts to guide improvement. METHODS: The study cohort included all centers that responded to the 2021 NPRP national assessment and contributed data to the National Trauma Databank (NTDB) the same calendar year. Center characteristics and pediatric (0-15y) volume from the NTDB were linked to weighted pediatric readiness scores (wPRS) obtained from the NPRP assessment. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to determine associations between wPRS and trauma center type as well as center-level facility characteristics. RESULTS: The wPRS was reported for 77% (749/973) of centers that contributed to the NTDB. ED Pediatric Readiness was highest in ACS level one pediatric trauma centers (PTCs), but wPRS in the highest quartile was seen among all adult and pediatric trauma center types. Independent predictors of high wPRS included ACS level one PTC verification, pediatric trauma volume, and the presence of a PICU. Higher-level adult trauma centers and pediatric trauma centers were more likely to have pediatric-specific physician requirements, pediatric emergency care coordinators, and pediatric quality improvement initiatives. CONCLUSION: ED pediatric readiness in trauma centers remains variable and is predictably lower in centers that lack inpatient resources. There is, however, no aspect of ED pediatric readiness that is constrained to high-level pediatric facilities, and a highest quartile wPRS was achieved in all types of adult centers in our study. Ongoing efforts to improve pediatric readiness for initial stabilization at non-pediatric centers are needed, particularly in centers that routinely transfer children out. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic, Level III.

"Right now, it's kind of haphazard"-Pediatric emergency care coordinators and quality of emergency care for children: A qualitative study.

Objectives: Pediatric readiness varies widely among emergency departments (EDs). The presence of a pediatric emergency care coordinator (PECC) has been associated with improved pediatric readiness and decreased mortality, but adoption of PECCs has been limited. Our objective was to understand factors associated with PECC implementation in general EDs. Methods: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with a purposively sampled set of EDs with and without PECCs. Interviews were completed, transcribed, and coded until thematic saturation was reached. Themes were identified through a consensus process and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Twenty-four interviews were conducted and mapped to themes related to innovation, individuals and implementation process, outer setting (health system), and inner setting (hospital/ED). Addressing innovation, individuals, and implementation process, the primary theme was variability in how the PECC role was defined and who was responsible for implementing it. Regarding the outer setting, participants reported that limited system resources affected their ability to implement the PECC role. Key inner setting themes included concerns about limited visit volume, a lack of systems for measuring pediatric quality of care, and significant tension around change. Conclusions: Implementation of the PECC role appears to be limited by heterogeneous interpretations of the PECC, de-prioritization of pediatrics, and limited system resources. However, many participants described motivation to improve pediatric care and implement the PECC role in context of increasing pediatric visits; they offered strategies for future implementation efforts.

The hospital costs of high emergency department pediatric readiness.

Objective: We estimate annual hospital expenditures to achieve high emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness (HPR), that is, weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (wPRS) ≥ 88 (0-100 scale) across EDs with different pediatric volumes of children, overall and after accounting for current levels of readiness. Methods: We calculated the annual hospital costs of HPR based on two components: (1) ED pediatric equipment and supplies and (2) labor costs required for a Pediatric Emergency Care Coordinator (PECC) to perform pediatric readiness tasks. Data sources to generate labor cost estimates included: 2021 national salary information from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, detailed patient and readiness data from 983 EDs in 11 states, the 2021 National Pediatric Readiness Project assessment; a national PECC survey; and a regional PECC survey. Data sources for equipment and supply costs included: purchasing costs from seven healthcare organizations and equipment usage per ED pediatric volume. We excluded costs of day-to-day ED operations (ie, direct clinical care and routine ED supplies). Results: The total annual hospital costs for HPR ranged from $77,712 (95% CI 54,719-100,694) for low volume EDs to $279,134 (95% CI 196,487-362,179) for very high volume EDs; equipment costs accounted for 0.9-5.0% of expenses. The total annual cost-per-patient ranged from $3/child (95% CI 2-4/child) to $222/child (95% CI 156-288/child). After accounting for current readiness levels, the cost to reach HPR ranged from $23,775 among low volume EDs to $145,521 among high volume EDs, with costs per patient of $4/child to $48/child. Conclusions: Annual hospital costs for HPR are modest, particularly when considered per child.

Changes in Emergency Department Pediatric Readiness and Mortality.

Importance: High emergency department (ED) pediatric readiness is associated with improved survival, but the impact of changes to ED readiness is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the association of changes in ED pediatric readiness at US trauma centers between 2013 and 2021 with pediatric mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2021, at EDs of trauma centers in 48 states and the District of Columbia. Participants included injured children younger than 18 years with admission or injury-related death at a participating trauma center, including transfers to other trauma centers. Data analysis was performed from May 2023 to January 2024. Exposure: Change in ED pediatric readiness, measured using the weighted Pediatric Readiness Score (wPRS, range 0-100, with higher scores denoting greater readiness) from national assessments in 2013 and 2021. Change groups included high-high (wPRS ≥93 on both assessments), low-high (wPRS <93 in 2013 and wPRS ≥93 in 2021), high-low (wPRS ≥93 in 2013 and wPRS <93 in 2021), and low-low (wPRS <93 on both assessments). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was lives saved vs lost, according to ED and in-hospital mortality. The risk-adjusted association between changes in ED readiness and mortality was evaluated using a hierarchical, mixed-effects logistic regression model based on a standardized risk-adjustment model for trauma, with a random slope-random intercept to account for clustering by the initial ED. Results: The primary sample included 467 932 children (300 024 boys [64.1%]; median [IQR] age, 10 [4 to 15] years; median [IQR] Injury Severity Score, 4 [4 to 15]) at 417 trauma centers. Observed mortality by ED readiness change group was 3838 deaths of 144 136 children (2.7%) in the low-low ED group, 1804 deaths of 103 767 children (1.7%) in the high-low ED group, 1288 deaths of 64 544 children (2.0%) in the low-high ED group, and 2614 deaths of 155 485 children (1.7%) in the high-high ED group. After risk adjustment, high-readiness EDs (persistent or change to) had 643 additional lives saved (95% CI, -328 to 1599 additional lives saved). Low-readiness EDs (persistent or change to) had 729 additional preventable deaths (95% CI, -373 to 1831 preventable deaths). Secondary analysis suggested that a threshold of wPRS 90 or higher may optimize the number of lives saved. Among 716 trauma centers that took both assessments, the median (IQR) wPRS decreased from 81 (63 to 94) in 2013 to 77 (64 to 93) in 2021 because of reductions in care coordination and quality improvement. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the findings of this study of injured children in US trauma centers were not statistically significant, they suggest that trauma centers should increase their level of ED pediatric readiness to reduce mortality and increase the number of pediatric lives saved after injury.

Pediatric emergency care coordinator workforce: A survey study.

Objectives: The appointment of pediatric emergency care coordinators (PECC) in emergency departments (EDs) enhances pediatric readiness, yet little is understood regarding this workforce. We describe PECC role characteristics, responsibilities, barriers, and threats to the role among a national cohort. Methods: We surveyed a sample of PECCs from all regions of the United States who participated in the Emergency Medical Services for Children PECC Workforce and Trauma Collaboratives (2021-2022). EDs were categorized by annual pediatric patient volume: low (<1800), medium (1800-4999), medium-high (5000-9999), and high (≥10,000). Trend tests were performed to explore the relationship between pediatric volume and PECC characteristics. Results: Among 187 PECCs, 114 (61.0%) responded. The majority (75.2%) identified as a nurse. There was a significant difference in median hours per week spent on PECC activities by pediatric volume ranging from a median of 2 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 0.0-2.3) for low pediatric volume to 16 hours (IQR 4.0-37.0) for high pediatric volume (P < 0.001). Most respondents reported more time was needed for PECC activities (58.4%), and desired additional training to support the role (70.8%). Most (74.6%) felt the PECC position should be paid, yet 30.7% reported the role was voluntary. The most frequently assigned responsibilities were education of staff (77.2%) and oversight of quality improvement (QI) efforts (72.8%). Conclusion: Characteristics of PECC workforce vary but PECC activities of education and QI work are common among all. There is a reported need for additional training and support. Further studies will determine the impact of PECC characteristics on pediatric readiness.