Rear-Facing Car Safety Seat Use for Children 18 Months of Age: Prevalence and Determinants.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and potential determinants of rear-facing car safety seat use among children approximately 18 months of age born at a university hospital. STUDY DESIGN: We administered a telephone survey to caregivers of children 17-19 months of age who were born between November 2013 and May 2014. The survey was designed to assess the prevalence of rear-facing car safety seat use and estimate the likelihood of rear-facing car safety seat use, compared with forward-facing car seat use, in reference to hypothesized determinants. aORs and 95% CIs were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 56% of potentially eligible caregivers (491/877) completed the survey; 62% of these reported rear-facing car safety seat use. Race, education, rurality, and household income were associated with rear-facing car safety seat use after controlling for potential confounders. Additionally, caregivers who reported having discussed car seats with their child's provider (aOR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.6); receiving their child's primary care in pediatrics compared with family practice clinics (aOR 2.4; 95% CI 1.1-2.6); and being aware of the American Academy of Pediatrics rear-facing recommendation (aOR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8-4.1) were significantly more likely to report rear-facing car safety seat use. Conversely, caregivers who previously used a car seat with another child were less likely to have their child rear facing at 18 months of age (aOR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4-0.9). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of children were forward facing at 18 months of age. Future efforts focused on encouraging providers to discuss car seats during patient visits, increasing awareness of the American Academy of Pediatrics' rear-facing recommendation, and targeting high-risk populations may improve the prevalence of children who remain rear facing until 2 years of age.

Unsafe from the Start: Serious Misuse of Car Safety Seats at Newborn Discharge.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate prevalence of car safety seat (CSS) misuse for newborns on hospital discharge; and to identify potential risk and protective factors for CSS misuse. STUDY DESIGN: We randomly sampled 291 mother-baby dyads from the newborn unit of an academic health center. Participants completed a survey and designated someone (themselves or another caregiver) to position their newborn in the CSS and install the CSS in their vehicle. Certified child passenger safety technicians assessed positioning and installation using nationally standardized criteria. To examine factors associated with CSS misuse, we used logistic regression to compute ORs and 95% CIs. RESULTS: A total of 291 families (81% of those eligible) participated. Nearly all (95%) CSSs were misused, with 1 or more errors in positioning (86%) and/or installation (77%). Serious CSS misuse occurred for 91% of all infants. Frequent misuses included harness and chest clip errors, incorrect recline angle, and seat belt/lower anchor use errors. Families with mothers of color (OR, 6.3; 95% CI, 1.8-21.6), non-English language (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.1-21.2), Medicaid (OR, 10.3; 95% CI, 2.4-44.4), or lower educational level (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.7-12.4) were more likely to misuse CSSs. However, families that worked with a child passenger safety technician before delivery were significantly less likely to misuse their CSSs (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-0.4). CONCLUSION: Nearly all parents of newborn infants misused CSSs. Resources should be devoted to ensuring families with newborns leave the hospital correctly using their CSS.

Getting Babies Safely Home: A Retrospective Chart Review of Car Safety Seat Tolerance Screening Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends pre-discharge Car Seat Tolerance Screening (CSTS) for all neonates born <37 weeks estimated gestational age (EGA), or otherwise at risk for cardiorespiratory compromise. Screening is burdensome and there remains tremendous variation in testing criteria and methodology. DESIGN/METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 1,072 infants who underwent CSTS between 11/2013 and 7/2016 at a single academic health center. CSTS outcomes (failure and, separately, significant cardiorespiratory instability (CRI)), including those not meeting failure thresholds) were analyzed for all infants screened, and for preterm infants by screening location (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and Mother/Baby Unit (MBU)). Logistic regression was used to estimate associations between infant characteristics and CSTS outcomes. RESULTS: Overall incidence of CSTS failure was 9.2%. Among all infants, hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease, apnea, chronic lung disease, and being small for EGA were associated with failure. Additionally, those born ≤28 weeks EGA had 2.4 times greater likelihood of failure than those 34-36 weeks EGA. Among preterm infants in the NICU and MBU, those of earlier EGA were also more likely to fail. Almost half (47.5%) of all preterm infants demonstrated CRI during CSTS. CONCLUSION: We found high CSTS failure rates, and identified key infant characteristics that were associated with increased likelihood of failure. Significant CRI events were remarkably common. Larger, prospective studies are needed to elucidate risk factors for instability and failure and define practical criteria for CSTS recommendations.

Protect Our Kids: a novel program bringing hemorrhage control to schools.

BACKGROUND: Following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Hartford Consensus produced the Stop the Bleed program to train bystanders in hemorrhage control. In our region, the police bureau delivers critical incident training to public schools, offering instruction in responding to violent or dangerous situations. Until now, widespread training in hemorrhage control has been lacking. Our group developed, implemented and evaluated a novel program integrating hemorrhage control into critical incident training for school staff in order to blunt the impact of mass casualty events on children. METHODS: The staff of 25 elementary and middle schools attended a 90-minute course incorporating Stop the Bleed into the critical incident training curriculum, delivered on-site by police officers, nurses and doctors over a three-day period. The joint program was named Protect Our Kids. At the conclusion of the course, hemorrhage control kits and educational materials were provided and a four-question survey to assess the quality of training using a ten-point Likert scale was completed by participants and trainers. RESULTS: One thousand eighteen educators underwent training. A majority were teachers (78.2%), followed by para-educators (5.8%), counselors (4.4%) and principals (2%). Widely covered by local and state media, the Protect Our Kids program was rated as excellent and effective by a majority of trainees and all trainers rated the program as excellent. CONCLUSIONS: Through collaboration between trauma centers, police and school systems, a large-scale training program for hemorrhage control and critical incident response can be effectively delivered to schools.