Children with severe sepsis: relationship between community level income and morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Health disparities surrounding pediatric severe sepsis outcomes remains unclear. We aimed to measure the relationship between indicators of socioeconomic status and mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and readmission rates among children hospitalized with severe sepsis. METHODS: Children 0-18 years old, hospitalized with severe sepsis in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2018) were included. The primary exposure was median household income by ZIP Code of residence, divided into quartiles. RESULTS: We identified 15,214 index pediatric severe sepsis hospitalizations. There was no difference in hospital mortality rate or readmission rate across income quartiles. Among survivors, patients in Q1 (lowest income) had a 2 day longer LOS compared to those in Q4 (Median 10 days [IQR 4-21] vs 8 days [IQR 4-18]; p < 0.0001). However, there was no difference after adjusting for multiple covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Children living in Q1 had a 2 day longer LOS versus their peers in Q4. This was not significant on multivariable analysis, suggesting income quartile is not driving this difference. As pediatric severe sepsis remains an important source of morbidity and mortality in critically ill children, more sensitive metrics of socioeconomic status may better elucidate any disparities. IMPACT: Children with severe sepsis living in the lowest income ZIP Codes may have longer hospital stays compared to peers in higher income communities. More precise metrics of socioeconomic status are needed to better understand health disparities in pediatric severe sepsis.

Optimizing Pediatric Rapid Response Teams: Stakeholder Focus Groups.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid response teams (RRTs) can improve outcomes in both adult and pediatric hospitals. Most pediatric hospitals have RRT-type systems; however, little is known about stakeholders' perspectives regarding how to optimize RRT quality and efficiency. We aimed to better understand multidisciplinary stakeholder perspectives on how to improve the RRT process. METHODS: We held 4 stakeholder focus groups including floor nurses, pediatric trainees (interns and residents), pediatric hospitalists, and the responding PICU team (PICU fellows and nurses). We used deductive coding to identify potential solutions and subsequent themes. RESULTS: Focus groups identified 10 potential solutions within 3 major themes. Themes included (1) the value of a standardized RRT workflow based on stages, (2) the benefit of promoting a safety culture, and (3) the need to implement ongoing RRT education. Stakeholders described a shared mental model of RRT workflow with important events or tasks occurring within each stage. These stages were coded as 1: trigger, 2: team arrival and information sharing, 3: intervention, and 4: disposition and follow-up. Additional proposed solutions included waiting for the entire team to arrive, a systematic information sharing process, and closed loop communication for follow-up plans for patients remaining on the general care floor. CONCLUSIONS: RRT stakeholder focus groups provide valuable insight into efforts to optimize RRT events. Standardizing RRT workflow into a staged process may facilitate communication and information sharing. Promoting a culture of safety and implementing ongoing education may help reinforce RRT standardization.

Understanding Disparities in the Pediatric ICU: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Health disparities are pervasive in pediatrics. We aimed to describe disparities among patients who are likely to be cared for in the PICU and delineate how sociodemographic data are collected and categorized. METHODS: Using MEDLINE as a data source, we identified studies which included an objective to assess sociodemographic disparities among PICU patients in the United States. We created a review rubric, which included methods of sociodemographic data collection and analysis, outcome and exposure variables assessed, and study findings. Two authors reviewed every study. We used the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Framework to organize outcome and exposure variables. RESULTS: The 136 studies included used variable methods of sociodemographic data collection and analysis. A total of 30 of 124 studies (24%) assessing racial disparities used self- or parent-identified race. More than half of the studies (52%) dichotomized race as white and "nonwhite" or "other" in some analyses. Socioeconomic status (SES) indicators also varied; only insurance status was used in a majority of studies (72%) evaluating SES. Consistent, although not uniform, disadvantages existed for racial minority populations and patients with indicators of lower SES. The authors of only 1 study evaluated an intervention intended to mitigate health disparities. Requiring a stated objective to evaluate disparities aimed to increase the methodologic rigor of included studies but excluded some available literature. CONCLUSIONS: Variable, flawed methodologies diminish our understanding of disparities in the PICU. Meaningfully understanding and addressing health inequity requires refining how we collect, analyze, and interpret relevant data.