Predictors of Delayed Diagnosis of Pediatric CNS Tumors in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: Central nervous system (CNS) tumor diagnoses are frequently delayed in children, which may lead to adverse outcomes and undue burdens on families. Examination of factors associated with delayed emergency department (ED) diagnosis could identify approaches to reduce delays. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a case-control study using data from 2014 to 2017 for 6 states. We included children aged 6 months to 17 years with a first diagnosis of CNS tumor in the ED. Cases had a delayed diagnosis, defined as 1 or more ED visits in the 140 days preceding tumor diagnosis (the mean prediagnostic symptomatic interval for pediatric CNS tumors in the United States). Controls had no such preceding visit. RESULTS: We included 2828 children (2139 controls, 76%; 689 cases, 24%). Among cases, 68% had 1 preceding ED visit, 21% had 2, and 11% had 3 or more. Significant predictors of delayed diagnosis included presence of a complex chronic condition (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.67-14.20), rural hospital location (aOR, 6.37; 95% CI, 1.80-22.54), nonteaching hospital status (aOR, 3.05, compared with teaching hospitals; 95% CI, 1.94-4.80), age younger than 5 years (aOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.16-2.12), public insurance (aOR, 1.49, compared with private; 95% CI, 1.16-1.92), and Black race (aOR, 1.42, compared with White; 95% CI, 1.01-1.98). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed ED diagnosis of pediatric CNS tumors is common and frequently requires multiple ED encounters. Prevention of delays should focus on careful evaluation of young or chronically ill children, mitigating disparities for Black and publicly insured children, and improving pediatric readiness in rural and nonteaching EDs.

Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice Improves Retention of Pediatric Resuscitation Skills Compared With Postsimulation Debriefing.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) for teaching team-based resuscitation is associated with similar improvements in immediate performance as compared with postsimulation debriefing (PSD). Limited studies compare skill retention between these 2 modalities. Our objective was to compare retention of team leader performance in residents trained with RCDP versus PSD. METHODS: This was a cluster-randomized trial comparing RCDP and PSD from January 2018 to April 2019. Pediatric and emergency medicine residents participated in simulation-based pediatric resuscitation education, and teams were randomized to undergo either RCDP or PSD. Each participant's team leader performance was assessed 1 to 12 months after training via a simulated cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was time to defibrillation. Secondary outcomes included overall team leader performance and time to chest compressions. RESULTS: Thirty-two residents (90.6% pediatrics, 9.4% emergency medicine) met inclusion criteria (16 RCDP, 16 PSD). Of the 32 residents, 40% returned in 1 to 3 months, 25% 3 to 6 months, 16% 6 to 9 months, and 19% 10 to 12 months. Participants in RCDP had more than 5 times the odds of achieving defibrillation versus those in the PSD group (odds ratio = 5.57, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-27.52, P = 0.04). The RCDP group had a higher mean Resident Team Leader Evaluation score (0.54 ± 0.19) than the PSD group (0.34 ± 0.16, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows significant differences in subsequent performance in the team leader trained with RCDP and suggests that RCDP may improve retention of pediatric resuscitation skills compared with PSD. Future studies should focus on best applications for RCDP with attention to knowledge and skill decay.

Rapid-cycle deliberate practice improves time to defibrillation and reduces workload: A randomized controlled trial of simulation-based education.

BACKGROUND: The optimal structure of simulation to train teams to perform pediatric advanced life support (PALS) requires further research. Most simulation is structured with an uninterrupted scenario with postsimulation debriefing (PSD). Rapid-cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) is structured with a series of simulations with microdebriefing quickly switching within action targeting specific performance goals. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare team performance immediately after training, as well as learner workload, for teams trained using either PSD or RCDP. METHODS: In 2018-2019, a total of 41 interprofessional teams of 210 residents and nurses were recruited from 250 eligible participants (84%) and randomized into either arm (RCDP or PSD) teaching the same objectives of resuscitation of a patient in PEA arrest, in the same time frame. The structure of the simulation varied. Demographic surveys were collected before training, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) was administered immediately after training to assess workload during training and performance was assessed immediately after training using a pulseless ventricular tachycardia arrest with the primary outcome being time to defibrillation. RESULTS: Thirty-nine teams participated over a 16-month time span. Performance of teams randomized to RCDP showed significantly better time to defibrillation, 100 s (95% confidence interval [CI] = 90-111), compared to PSD groups, 163 s (95% CI = 120-201). The workload of the groups also showed a lower total NASA-TLX score for the RCDP groups. CONCLUSIONS: For team-based time-sensitive training of PALS, RCDP outperformed PSD. This may be due to a reduction in the workload faced by teams during training.

Workload of learners during simulated paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Introduction: Learner workload during simulated team-based resuscitations is not well understood. In this descriptive study, we measured the workload of learners in different team roles during simulated paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Methods: Paediatric emergency nurses and paediatric and emergency medicine residents formed teams of four to eight and randomised into roles to participate in simulation-based, paediatric resuscitation. Participant workload was measured using the NASA Task Load Index, which provides an average workload score (from 0 to 100) across six subscores: mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, frustration and mental effort. Workload is considered low if less than 40, moderate if between 40 and 60 and high if greater than 60. Results: There were 210 participants representing 40 simulation teams. 138 residents (66%) and 72 nurses (34%) participated. Team lead reported the highest workload at 65.2±10.0 (p=0.001), while the airway reported the lowest at 53.9±10.8 (p=0.001); team lead had higher scores for all subscores except physical demand. Team lead reported the highest mental demand (p<0.001), while airway reported the lowest. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach and first responder reported the highest physical demands (p<0.001), while team lead and nurse recorder reported the lowest (p<0.001). Conclusions: Workload for learners in paediatric simulated resuscitation teams was moderate to high and varied significantly based on team role. Composition of workload varied significantly by team role. Measuring learner workload during simulated resuscitations allows improved processes and choreography to optimise workload distribution.