Prevalence of Low-Acuity Pediatric Emergency Medical Services Transports to a Pediatric Emergency Department in an Urban Area.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) do not have emergent resource needs. Estimates for the proportion of pediatric EMS calls for low-acuity complaints, and thus potential candidates for alternative dispositions, vary widely and are often based on physician judgment. A more accurate reference standard should include patient assessments, interventions, and dispositions. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence and characteristics of low-acuity pediatric EMS calls in an urban area. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study of children transported by EMS to a tertiary care pediatric emergency department. Patient acuity was defined using a novel composite measure that included physiologic assessments, resources used, and disposition. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression were conducted to assess for factors associated with low-acuity status. RESULTS: A total of 996 patients were enrolled, of whom 32.9% (95% confidence interval, 30.0-36.0) were low acuity. Most of the sample was Black, non-Hispanic with a mean age of 7 years. When compared with adolescents, children younger than 1 year were more likely to be low acuity (adjusted odds ratio, 3.1 [1.9-5.1]). Patients in a motor vehicle crash were also more likely to be low acuity (adjusted odds ratio, 2.4 [1.2-4.6]). All other variables, including race, insurance status, chief complaint, and dispatch time, were not associated with low-acuity status. CONCLUSIONS: One third of pediatric patients transported to the pediatric emergency department by EMS in this urban area are for low-acuity complaints. Further research is needed to determine low-acuity rates in other jurisdictions and whether EMS providers can accurately identify low-acuity patients to develop alternative EMS disposition programs for children.

Clinician and Caregiver Determinations of Acuity for Children Transported by Emergency Medical Services: A Prospective Observational Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Many Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies have developed alternative disposition processes for patients with nonemergency problems, but there is a lack of evidence demonstrating EMS clinicians can accurately determine acuity in pediatric patients. Our study objective was to determine EMS and other stakeholders' ability to identify low acuity pediatric EMS patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of children transported to a pediatric emergency department (ED) by EMS. Acuity was defined using a composite measure that included data from the patient's vital signs and examination, resources used (laboratory results, radiographs, etc), and disposition. For each patient, an EMS clinician, patient caregiver, ED nurse, and ED provider completed a survey as soon as possible after the patient's arrival at the ED. The survey asked respondents 2 questions: to state their level of agreement that a patient was low acuity and could the patient have been managed by various alternative dispositions. For each respondent group, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for low acuity versus the composite measure. RESULTS: From August 2020 through September 2021, we approached 1,015 caregivers, of whom 996 (99.8%) agreed to participate and completed the survey. Survey completion varied between 78.7% and 84.1% for EMS and ED nurses and providers. The mean patient age was 7 years, 62.6% were non-Hispanic Black, and 60% were enrolled in public insurance programs. Of the 996 patient encounters, 33% were determined to be low acuity by the composite measure. The positive predictive value for EMS clinicians when identifying low acuity children was 0.60 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.58 to 0.67). The positive predictive value for ED nurses and providers was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.72) and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.74) respectively. The negative predictive value for EMS clinicians when identifying not low acuity children was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.67). The negative predictive value for ED nurses and providers was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.76) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.77) respectively. Caregivers had the lowest positive predictive value 0.34 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.40) but the highest negative predictive value 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.85). The EMS clinicians, ED nurses and providers were more likely than caregivers to think that a child with a low acuity complaint could have been safely managed by alternative disposition. CONCLUSION: All 4 groups studied had a limited ability to identify which children transported by EMS would have no emergency resource needs, and support for alternative disposition was limited. For children to be included in alternative disposition processes, novel triage tools, training, and oversight will be required to prevent undertriage.

Randomised feasibility trial of a virtual intervention to address infant car seat misuse.

BACKGROUND: Serious car seat installation errors occur at high rates in infants and children. These errors significantly increase the risk of child injury in a motor vehicle crash, and few interventions have addressed the challenge longitudinally. METHODS: This was a pilot randomised controlled feasibility trial of virtual car seat safety checks for caregivers of newborns recruited from an urban newborn nursery. The control (enhanced usual care (EUC)) group received an in-person car seat check as a newborn and virtual check at 9 months. The intervention group received two additional virtual checks at 3 and 6 months. Installation and infant positioning errors were documented and corrected by a child passenger safety technician (CPST). We measured feasibility and acceptability by tracking caregiver and CPST challenges, and caregiver retention. Group differences were tested for statistical significance using χ2 or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and two sample t-tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: 33 caregivers were randomised to the EUC and 28 to the intervention group. Virtual checks were feasible, with variable participation levels at each quarter. Wi-Fi and app challenges noted in 30%. There was satisfaction with the virtual car seat checks. At baseline, car seat installation and infant positioning errors occurred at equal frequency, and at 9 months the intervention group had a significantly lower mean proportion than the EUC group in all categories of errors. In summary, virtual seat checks are feasible and the optimal timing of repeat checks requires additional study. A larger study is needed to further evaluate the effect of longitudinal virtual checks on errors.

Virtual car seat checks during a pandemic.

Motor vehicle collisions are one of the leading causes of death and morbidity in children and young adults in the USA, and suboptimal child restraint use is an important risk factor for severe childhood injury and death. The restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic have presented unique challenges to the public health community, including how to use certified child passenger safety technicians through car seat checks. This case series assessed the feasibility of performing remote car seat checks and parental satisfaction with them. It provides preliminary evidence that remote car seat checks are feasible in a real-world environment and acceptable to caregivers during times in which in-person car seat checks are not safe or accessible.