Update on the Coordinated Efforts of Looking After the Health Care Needs of Children and Young People Fleeing the Conflict Zone of Ukraine Presenting to European Emergency Departments-A Joint Statement of the European Society for Emergency Paediatrics and the European Academy of Paediatrics.

This joint statement by the European Society for Emergency Paediatrics and European Academy of Paediatrics aims to highlight recommendations for dealing with refugee children and young people fleeing the Ukrainian war when presenting to emergency departments (EDs) across Europe. Children and young people might present, sometimes unaccompanied, with either ongoing complex health needs or illnesses, mental health issues, and injuries related to the war itself and the flight from it. Obstacles to providing urgent and emergency care include lack of clinical guidelines, language barriers, and lack of insight in previous medical history. Children with complex health needs are at high risk for complications and their continued access to specialist healthcare should be prioritized in resettlements programs. Ukraine has one of the lowest vaccination coverages in the Europe, and outbreaks of cholera, measles, diphtheria, poliomyelitis, and COVID-19 should be anticipated. In Ukraine, rates of multidrug resistant tuberculosis are high, making screening for this important. Urgent and emergency care facilities should also prepare for dealing with children with war-related injuries and mental health issues. Ukrainian refugee children and young people should be included in local educational systems and social activities at the earliest opportunity.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of face-to-face and electronic brief interventions versus screening alone to reduce alcohol consumption among high-risk adolescents presenting to emergency departments: three-arm pragmatic randomized trial (SIPS Junior high risk trial).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alcohol use increases throughout adolescence. Emergency department (ED) attendance is an opportunity for alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI), which is effective for adults. This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI compared with screening alone (SA) in high-risk adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-centre, three-group, single-blind, individually randomized trial with follow-ups after 6 and 12 months in 10 ED settings in England. From October 2014 to May 2015 we screened 3327 adolescents aged 14 to 18 years, of whom 756 (22.7%) scored at least 3 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: consumption (AUDIT-C) and consented to participate in this trial. Mean age was 16.1 years; 50.2% were female and 84.9% were white. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were personalized feedback and brief advice (PFBA), personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention (eBI) and SA. MEASURES: The primary outcome was the weekly alcohol consumed in standard UK units (8 g ethanol) at 12 months post-randomization, derived from extended AUDIT-C. Economic outcomes included quality of life and service use, from perspectives of both the National Health Service and personal social services (NHS&PSS) and society. FINDINGS: At 12 months, mean weekly consumption was 2.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.38-3.70] standard units for the SA group, 3.56 (95% CI = 2.90, 4.32) for PFBA and 3.18 (95% CI = 2.50, 3.97) for eBI, showing no significant differences. The PFBA group consumed mean 0.57 (-0.36, 1.70) units more than SA; and eBIs consumed 0.19 (-0.71, 1.30) more. Bayes factors suggested lack of effectiveness explained non-significance. From the NHS&PSS perspective, economic analysis showed that PFBA and eBI were not cost-effective compared with SA: PFBA yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £6213 (-£736 843, £812 884), with the intervention having 54% probability of being cost-effective compared with SA at the £20 000 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: In emergency departments in England, neither personalized feedback and brief advice nor personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention showed evidence of being effective or cost-effective when compared with screening alone in reducing alcohol consumption among adolescents.

NHS 111 Clinical Assessment Services: paediatric consultations.

Around the UK, commissioners have different models for delivering NHS 111, General Practice (GP) out-of-hours and urgent care services, focusing on telephony to help deliver urgent and emergency care. During the (early phases of the) COVID-19 pandemic, NHS 111 experienced an unprecedented volume of calls. At any time, 25%-30% of calls relate to children and young people (CYP). In response, the CYP's Transformation and Integrated Urgent Care teams at NHS England and NHS Improvement (NHSE/I) assisted in redeploying volunteer paediatricians into the integrated urgent care NHS 111 Clinical Assessment Services (CAS), taking calls about CYP. From this work, key stakeholders developed a paediatric 111 consultation framework, as well as learning outcomes, key capabilities and illustrations mapped against the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) Progress curriculum domains, to aid paediatricians in training to undertake NHS 111 activities. These learning outcomes and key capabilities have been endorsed by the RCPCH Curriculum Review Group and are recommended to form part of the integrated urgent care service specification and workforce blueprint to improve outcomes for CYP.

Shock Index in the early assessment of febrile children at the emergency department: a prospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To derive reference values for the Shock Index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) based on a large emergency department (ED) population of febrile children and (2) to determine the diagnostic value of the Shock Index for serious illness in febrile children. DESIGN/SETTING: Observational study in 11 European EDs (2017-2018). PATIENTS: Febrile children with measured blood pressure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serious bacterial infection (SBI), invasive bacterial infection (IBI), immediate life-saving interventions (ILSIs) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The association between high Shock Index (>95th centile) and each outcome was determined by logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, referral, comorbidity and temperature. Additionally, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and negative/positive likelihood ratios (LRs). RESULTS: Of 5622 children, 461 (8.2%) had SBI, 46 (0.8%) had IBI, 203 (3.6%) were treated with ILSI and 69 (1.2%) were ICU admitted. High Shock Index was associated with SBI (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9)), ILSI (aOR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 2.9)), ICU admission (aOR 2.2 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.9)) but not with IBI (aOR: 1.5 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.4)). For the different outcomes, sensitivity for high Shock Index ranged from 0.10 to 0.15, specificity ranged from 0.95 to 0.95, negative LRs ranged from 0.90 to 0.95 and positive LRs ranged from 1.8 to 2.8. CONCLUSIONS: High Shock Index is associated with serious illness in febrile children. However, its rule-out value is insufficient which suggests that the Shock Index is not valuable as a screening tool for all febrile children at the ED.

Paediatric NHS 111 Clinical Assessment Services pilot: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and impact of having paediatric clinicians working in the Clinical Assessment Services (CAS) within NHS 111, a national telephone advice service. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Six NHS 111 providers across England with CAS where volunteer paediatric clinicians (doctors and advanced nurse practitioners (ANPs)) worked between May and December 2020. A data reporting framework was used to compare the outcomes of calls taken by paediatric vs non-paediatric clinicians. PATIENTS: Under 16-year-olds prompting calls to NHS 111 over the study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The disposition (final outcome of calls) taken by paediatric versus non-paediatric clinicians, paediatric clinicians' and patient experience. RESULTS: 70 paediatric clinicians (66 doctors and 4 ANPs) worked flexible shifts in six NHS 111 providers' CAS over the study period: 2535 calls for under 16-year-olds were taken by paediatric clinicians and 137 008 by non-paediatric clinicians. Overall, disposition rates differed significantly between the calls taken by paediatric versus (vs) non-paediatric clinicians: 69% vs 43% were advised on self-care only, 13% vs 18% to attend emergency departments (EDs), 13% vs 29% to attend primary care, 1% vs 4% to receive an urgent ambulance call out and 4% vs 6% referred to another health service, respectively. When compared with recent (all age) national whole data sets, the feedback from calls taken by paediatricians noted a greater proportion of patients/carers reporting that their problem was fully resolved (92% vs 27%). CONCLUSIONS: Introducing paediatric specialists into NHS 111 CAS is likely to increase self-care dispositions, and reduce onward referrals to primary care, ED and ambulances. Future work will evaluate the impact of a national paediatric clinical assessment service to which specific case types are streamed.

Brief interventions to prevent excessive alcohol use in adolescents at low-risk presenting to Emergency Departments: Three-arm, randomised trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption and related harm increase rapidly from the age of 12 years. We evaluated whether alcohol screening and brief intervention is effective and cost-effective in delaying hazardous or harmful drinking amongst low-risk or abstaining adolescents attending Emergency Departments (EDs). METHODS: This ten-centre, three-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, pragmatic, individually randomised trial screened ED attenders aged between 14 and 17 years for alcohol consumption. We sampled at random one third of those scoring at most 2 on AUDIT-C who had access to the internet and, if aged under 16, were Gillick competent or had informed consent from parent or guardian. We randomised them between: screening only (control intervention); one session of face-to-face Personalised Feedback and Brief Advice (PFBA); and PFBA plus an electronic brief intervention (eBI) on smartphone or web. We conducted follow-up after six and 12 months. The principal outcomes were alcohol consumed over the 3 months before 12-month follow up, measured by AUDIT-C; and quality-adjusted life-years. FINDINGS: Between October 2014 and May 2015, we approached 5,016 eligible patients of whom 3,326 consented to be screened and participate in the trial; 2,571 of these were low-risk drinkers or abstainers, consuming an average 0.14 units per week. We randomised: 304 to screening only; 285 to PFBA; and 294 to PFBA and eBI. We found no significant difference between groups, notably in weekly alcohol consumption: those receiving screening only drank 0.10 units (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.18); PFBA 0.12 (0.06 to 0.21); PFBA and eBI 0.10 (0.05 to 0.19). INTERPRETATION: While drinking levels remained low in this population, this trial found no evidence that PFBA with or without eBI was more effective than screening alone in reducing or delaying alcohol consumption.

Can paediatric early warning scores (PEWS) be used to guide the need for hospital admission and predict significant illness in children presenting to the emergency department? An assessment of PEWS diagnostic accuracy using sensitivity and specificity.

OBJECTIVES: Designed to detect early deterioration of the hospitalised child, paediatric early warning scores (PEWS) validity in the emergency department (ED) is less validated. We aimed to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of two commonly used PEWS (Brighton and COAST) in predicting hospital admission and, for the first time, significant illness. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of PEWS data for paediatric ED attendances at St Mary's Hospital, London, UK, in November 2012. Patients with missing data were excluded. Diagnoses were grouped: medical and surgical. To classify diagnoses as significant, established guidelines were used and, where not available, common agreement between three acute paediatricians. RESULTS: 1921 patients were analysed. There were 211 admissions (11%). 1630 attendances were medical (86%) and 273 (14%) surgical. Brighton and COAST PEWS performed similarly. hospital admission: PEWS of ≥3 was specific (93%) but poorly sensitive (32%). The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was low at 0.690. Significant illness: for medical illness, PEWS ≥3 was highly specific (96%) but poorly sensitive (44%). The AUC was 0.754 and 0.755 for Brighton and COAST PEWS, respectively. Both scores performed poorly for predicting significant surgical illness (AUC 0.642). PEWS ≥3 performed well in predicting significant respiratory illness: sensitivity 75%, specificity 91%. CONCLUSIONS: Both Brighton and COAST PEWS scores performed similarly. A score of ≥3 has good specificity but poor sensitivity for predicting hospital admission and significant illness. Therefore, a high PEWS should be taken seriously but a low score is poor at ruling out the requirement for admission or serious underlying illness. PEWS was better at detecting significant medical illness compared with detecting the need for admission. PEWS performed poorly in detecting significant surgical illness. PEWS may be particularly useful in evaluating respiratory illness in a paediatric ED.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after cardiopulmonary arrest in childhood.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary arrest in children is an uncommon event, and often fatal. Resuscitation is often attempted, but at what point, and under what circumstances do continued attempts to re-establish circulation become futile? The uncertainty around these questions can lead to unintended distress to the family and to the resuscitation team. OBJECTIVES: To define the likely outcomes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in children, within different patient groups, related to clinical features. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-Process & Other non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane database of systematic reviews and Cochrane central register of trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment database, along with reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included articles. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Prospective cohort studies which derive or validate a clinical prediction model of outcome following cardiopulmonary arrest. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Children or young people (aged 0 - 18 years) who had cardiopulmonary arrest and received an attempt at resuscitation, excluding resuscitation at birth. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Risk of bias assessment developed the Hayden system for non-randomised studies and QUADAS2 for decision rules. Synthesis undertaken by narrative, and random effects meta-analysis with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. RESULTS: More than 18,000 episodes in 16 data sets were reported. Meta-analysis was possible for survival and one neurological outcome; others were reported too inconsistently. In-hospital patients (average survival 37.2% (95% CI 23.7 to 53.0%)) have a better chance of survival following cardiopulmonary arrest than out-of-hospital arrests (5.8% (95% CI 3.9% to 8.6%)). Better neurological outcome was also seen, but data were too scarce for meta-analysis (17% to 71% 'good' outcomes, compared with 2.8% to 3.2%). LIMITATION: Lack of consistent outcome reporting and short-term neurological outcome measures limited the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from this review. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: There is a need to collaboratively, prospectively, collect potentially predictive data on these rare events to understand more clearly the predictors of survival and long-term neurological outcome. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2013:CRD42013005102.

Linked randomised controlled trials of face-to-face and electronic brief intervention methods to prevent alcohol related harm in young people aged 14-17 years presenting to Emergency Departments (SIPS junior).

BACKGROUND: Alcohol is a major global threat to public health. Although the main burden of chronic alcohol-related disease is in adults, its foundations often lie in adolescence. Alcohol consumption and related harm increase steeply from the age of 12 until 20 years. Several trials focusing upon young people have reported significant positive effects of brief interventions on a range of alcohol consumption outcomes. A recent review of reviews also suggests that electronic brief interventions (eBIs) using internet and smartphone technologies may markedly reduce alcohol consumption compared with minimal or no intervention controls. Interventions that target non-drinking youth are known to delay the onset of drinking behaviours. Web based alcohol interventions for adolescents also demonstrate significantly greater reductions in consumption and harm among 'high-risk' drinkers; however changes in risk status at follow-up for non-drinkers or low-risk drinkers have not been assessed in controlled trials of brief alcohol interventions. DESIGN AND METHODS: The study design comprises two linked randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two intervention strategies compared with screening alone. One trial will focus on high-risk adolescent drinkers attending Emergency Departments (Eds) and the other will focus on those identified as low-risk drinkers or abstinent from alcohol but attending the same ED. Our primary (null) hypothesis is similar for both trials: Personalised Feedback and Brief Advice (PFBA) and Personalised Feedback plus electronic Brief Intervention (eBI) are no more effective than screening alone in alcohol consumed at 12 months after randomisation as measured by the Time-Line Follow-Back 28-day version. Our secondary (null) hypothesis relating to economics states that PFBA and eBI are no more cost-effective than screening alone. In total 1,500 participants will be recruited into the trials, 750 high-risk drinkers and 750 low-risk drinkers or abstainers. Participants will be randomised with equal probability, stratified by centre, to either a screening only control group or one of the two interventions: single session of PFBA or eBI. All participants will be eligible to receive treatment as usual in addition to any trial intervention. Individual participants will be followed up at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. DISCUSSION: The protocol represents an ambitious innovative programme of work addressing alcohol use in the adolescent population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45300218. Registered 5th July 2014.

How and why do you declare a major incident?

INTRODUCTION: The decision to declare a major incident (MI) is not one to be taken lightly, but a delay in doing so may have dire consequences. The aim of this study was to ascertain what factors make specialists from a variety of professional backgrounds in the United Kingdom determine from an initial visual assessment of a scene that a MI should be declared. METHODS: Participants were presented with three different scenarios, which were presented pictorially. Their responses were noted. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-eight professionals took part in this study. For Scenario 1 (a road traffic incident), 101 (57%) declared a MI. For a coach rollover in Scenario 2, a MI was declared by 82 (46%) people, and a MI was declared by 156 (87%) for a rail crash in Scenario 3. Forty-six participants had attended a MI previously. The results for declaring a MI in this group were: (1) Scenario 1, 25 (54%); (2) Scenario 2, 25 (54%); and (3) Scenario 3, 44 (96%). Of this group, 44 had previously had training before experiencing the MI. Those who had > or = 10 years of service in emergency services were more likely to declare a MI in Scenario 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: The main problem with the existing system is the interpretation and subjective nature of the word "major". Specialists incorporate many individual factors into using the word. Future research should focus on the development of a system tied to more objective analysis.