Reducing anxiety in the pediatric emergency department: a comparative trial.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety among patients in a pediatric emergency department (PED) can be significant, but often goes unaddressed. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine whether exposure to Child Life (CL) or hospital clowning (HC) can reduce anxiety in children presenting to a PED. METHODS: Patients were randomized to CL, HC, or control and assessed upon entry to examination room (T1), before physician arrival (T2), and during physician examination (T3), using the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (m-YPAS). CL and HC interventions occurred for 5 to 10 min before physician entry. Effects were analyzed using mixed analysis of variance. RESULTS: m-YPAS scores ranged from 23 to 59, with a higher score indicating increased anxiety. Mixed analysis of variance on the study sample (n = 113) showed a significant interaction between groups (CL, HC, control) and time (p = 0.02). Additional analyses indicated effect of group only at T2 (CL: mean = 23.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 23.2-24.5; HC: mean 25.2; 95% CI 24.2-26.2; control: mean = 26.1; 95% CI 24.2-27.9; p = .02). Subanalysis of patients with T1 m-YPAS score ≥ 28 (n = 56) showed a significant interaction between group and time (p = 0.01). Additional analysis showed effect of group only at T2 (CL: mean 24.4; 95% CI 23.3-25.6; HC: mean 27.0; 95% CI 25.2-28.7; control: mean 29.2; 95% CI 25.6-32.7; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CL services can reduce state anxiety for patients presenting to a PED with heightened anxiety at baseline. This reduction occurred immediately after CL intervention, but was not observed in patients exposed to HC or during physician examination.

A retrospective comparison of ketamine dosing regimens for pediatric procedural sedation.

OBJECTIVE: Ketamine is a dissociative agent often used in pediatric emergency departments for procedural sedation. Institutions commonly use either 1.5 mg/kg (k1.5) or 1 mg/kg (k1.0) as intravenous dosing. We sought to determine whether patients receiving k1.0 require more administered doses during sedation than patients receiving k1.5. Furthermore, we examined whether differences existed between k1.0 and k1.5 in the total dosage, total mg/kg, and time to recovery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review examining procedural sedations from July 2010 through December 2011 was performed for sedations using k1.0 or k1.5. Cohorts were compared on the basis of the number of doses, mg/kg administered, total dosage (mg), and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 346 patients were included, with 159 patients in k1.0 and 187 patients in k1.5. No significant differences in demographics were observed between k1.0 and k1.5. Patients in k1.5 required fewer median doses of ketamine compared with k1.0 (1.0 vs. 2.0, P=0.02). k1.0 had a higher median overall mg/kg dosage (1.71 mg/kg) than k1.5 (1.60 mg/kg) (P<0.01). k1.5 showed a decrease in the number of sedations requiring a third dose of ketamine to complete sedation as compared with k1.0 (7.57 vs. 18.47%, P=0.002). No significant difference in adverse events was found between k1.0 and k1.5. CONCLUSION: Sedations using k1.5 require fewer doses, lower mg/kg administered, but a higher total dose than k1.0. No difference was found in the rate of adverse events between the groups. Our findings suggest that ketamine sedations can be completed safely with one dose when patients are initially dosed at 1.5 mg/kg.