Childhood pneumonia in humanitarian emergencies in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic scoping review.

Background: Humanitarian emergencies increase many risk factors for pneumonia, including disruption to food, water and sanitation, and basic health services. This review describes pneumonia morbidity and mortality among children and adolescents affected by humanitarian emergencies. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases for publications reporting pneumonia morbidity or mortality among children aged 1 month to 17 years in humanitarian emergencies (eg, natural disaster, armed conflict, displacement) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Results: We included 22 papers published between January 2000 and July 2021 from 33 countries, involving refugee/displaced persons camps (n = 5), other conflict settings (n = 14), and natural disaster (n = 3). Population pneumonia incidence was high for children under 5 years of age (73 to 146 episodes per 100 patient-years); 6%-29% met World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for severe pneumonia requiring admission. Pneumonia accounted for 13%-34% of child and adolescent presentations to camp health facilities, 7%-48% of presentations and admissions to health facilities in other conflict settings, and 12%-22% of admissions to hospitals following natural disasters. Pneumonia related deaths accounted for 7%-30% of child and adolescent deaths in hospital, though case-fatality rates varied greatly (0.5%-17.2%). The risk for pneumonia was greater for children who are: recently displaced, living in crowded settings (particularly large camps), with deficient water and sanitation facilities, and those who are malnourished. Conclusion: Pneumonia is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children and adolescents affected by humanitarian emergencies. Future research should address population-based pneumonia burden, particularly for older children and adolescents, and describe contextual factors to allow for more meaningful interpretation and guide interventions.

A single centre audit: repeat pre-operative colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Repeat colonoscopy may be required for tumour localisation. The aim of the study is to explore the clinical settings it was used and benchmark the quality of initial colonoscopy against standardized guidelines for tumour localisation, tattooing and colonoscopy reporting amongst clinicians. METHODS: A retrospective study from 2016 to 2021 has been performed on patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer resections at the Northern Hospital. Patient demographics, colonoscopic and operative details were retrieved from the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) Registry database and hospital medical records. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: changes in operative approach and delays to operation. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: reasons for a repeat colonoscopy and complications from repeat colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 339 patients were included in this study. 94 (28.6%) underwent a repeat colonoscopy. Re-scoping rate was 29.6% for surgeons, and 26.2% for non-operating endoscopists. Surgeons had a 5.9% localisation error rate, and non-operating endoscopist 6.95% (p = 0.673). Surgeons did not have a lower rate of repeat colonoscopy (p = 0.462). Repeat endoscopy was associated with a longer time to definitive operation (p < 0.001). No complications were associated with a repeat colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in localisation error rates or repeat colonoscopy amongst surgeons (29.6%) and non-operating endoscopists (26.2%) (p = 0.462). This could be explained by the standardized endoscopy training in Australia governed by a common training board. Lack of tattooing at index colonoscopy and inadequate documentation often led to a repeat endoscopy, which was associated with a longer time to definitive operation. Standardized guidelines in tattooing of lesions and colonoscopy reporting should be implemented.