Is paediatric endotracheal suctioning by nurses evidence based? An International Survey.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal suction (ETS) is essential in intubated patients to prevent tube occlusion and is one of the most common nursing interventions performed in intensive care. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore how paediatric ETS practices reflect evidence-based practice (EBP) recommendations in paediatric intensive care units (PICU) worldwide. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey linked to a real patient suction episode. Nurses completed the survey following a recent ETS episode. Evidence-based practice (EBP) was defined based on four of the American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC) best evidence recommendations: pre-oxygenation before suction, use of a suction catheter no more than half the diameter of the tracheal tube, shallow depth of suction, and the continuous suction applied upon withdrawal of the catheter. Participants included PICU nurses who performed ETS in children (0-17 years) excluding preterm neonates. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-six complete surveys were received from 20 countries. Most nurses (80%, 367/446) reported that their units had local guidelines for ETS. The most common reason for suctioning (44%) was audible/visible secretions. Over half of ETS episodes (57%) used closed suction. When exploring the individual components of suction, 63% (282/446) of nurses pre-oxygenated their patient prior to suction, 71% (319/446) suctioned no further than 0.5 cm past end of the endotracheal tube (ETT), 59% (261/446) used a catheter no more than half the diameter of the ETT, and 78% (348/446) used continuous negative pressure. 24% of nurses gave patients an additional bolus of sedative, analgesic, and/or muscle-relaxant medication prior to suction; this decision was not related to the child's history of instability with suction, as there was no significant difference in those who reported patients had a history of being unstable with suction (P = .80). 26% (117/446) of nurses complied with all four EBP components in the reported suctioning episode. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation in paediatric endotracheal suctioning practices exists internationally. Although most nurses applied single components of evidence-based recommendations during ETT suctioning, just a quarter applied all four elements. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses need to consider and strive to apply EBP principles to common nursing interventions such as ETS.

Lateral flow test performance in children for SARS-CoV-2 using anterior nasal and buccal swabbing: sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the sensitivity of the lateral flow test is dependent on the viral load and on the location of swabbing in the respiratory tract in children. DESIGN: Phase 1: Routinely performed reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using nose and throat (NT) swabs or endotracheal (ET) aspirates were compared with Innova lateral flow tests (LFTs) using anterior nasal (AN) swabs. Phase 2: RT-PCR-positive children underwent paired AN RT-PCR and LFT and/or paired AN RT-PCR and buccal LFT. SETTING: Tertiary paediatric hospitals. PATIENTS: Children under the age of 18 years. Phase 1: undergoing routine testing, phase 2: known SARS-CoV-2 positive. RESULTS: Phase 1: 435 paired swabs taken in 431 asymptomatic patients resulted in 8 positive RT-PCRs, 9 PCR test failures and 418 negative RT-PCRs from NT or ET swabs. The test performance of AN LFT demonstrated sensitivity: 25% (4%-59%), specificity: 100% (99%-100%), positive predictive value (PPV): 100% (18%-100%) and negative predictive value (NPV): 99% (97%-99%).Phase 2: 14 AN RT-PCR-positive results demonstrated a sensitivity of 77% (50%-92%) of LFTs performed on AN swabs. 15/16 paired buccal LFT swabs were negative. CONCLUSION: The NPV, PPV and specificity of LFTs are excellent. The sensitivity of LFTs compared with RT-PCR is good when the samples are colocated but may be reduced when the LFT swab is taken from the AN. Buccal swabs are not appropriate for LFT testing. Careful consideration of the swabbing reason, the tolerance of the child and the requirements for test processing (eg, rapidity of results) should be undertaken within hospital settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04629157.

Developing a prototype digital risk mitigation pathway for children and young people admitted to acute paediatric NHS care in mental health crisis: Protocol of the Safety Assessment in Paediatric healthcare Environments (SAPhE) pathway study.

Background: Globally, there are increasing numbers of Children and young people (CYPs) experiencing a mental health crisis requiring admission to acute paediatric inpatient care. These CYPs can often experience fluctuating emotional states accompanied by urges to self-harm or attempt to end their life, leading to reduced safety and poorer experiences. Currently, in the UK National Health Service (NHS) there are no standardised, evidence-based interventions in acute paediatric care to mitigate or minimise immediate risk of self-harm and suicide in CYP admitted with mental health crisis. Objective: To outline the protocol for the SAPhE Pathway study which aims to: 1) identify and prioritise risk mitigation strategies to include in the digital prototype, 2) understand the feasibility of implementing a novel digital risk mitigation pathway in differing NHS contexts, and 3) co-create a prototype digital risk mitigation pathway. Methods: This is a multi-centre study uses a mixed-methods design. A systematic review and exploratory methods (interviews, surveys, and focus groups) will be used to identify the content and feasibility of implementing a digital risk mitigation pathway. Participants will include healthcare professionals, digital experts and CYP with experience of mental health conditions. Data will be collected between January 2022 and March 2023 and analysed using content and thematic analysis, case study, cross-case analysis for qualitative data and descriptive statistics for quantitative data. Findings will inform the experience-based co-design workshops. Ethics and Dissemination: The study received full ethical approval from NHS REC [Ref: 22/SC/0237 and 22/WM/0167]. Findings will be made available to all stakeholders using multiple approaches.