Comparison of Ultrasound-Marked Versus Standard Lumbar Puncture Success in Infants.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare ultrasound (US)-marked versus standard lumbar puncture success in infants. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study at an academic pediatric emergency department. Standard lumbar puncture success in a retrospective control was compared with success in a US-marked group. Spinal US was performed with infants in the sitting and lateral decubitus position to identify the interspinous space with the most cerebrospinal fluid. The optimal position was determined, and this space was marked. The proceduralist performed the lumbar puncture at the level of the markings. The primary outcome was a successful lumbar puncture by the first provider, defined as a collection of cerebrospinal fluid with less than 1000 red blood cells/mm3. Secondary outcomes were successful lumbar puncture after attempts by more than 1 provider and collection of any spinal fluid. RESULTS: Between June 2017 and April 2019, we enrolled 284 infants younger than 12 months, 210 in the retrospective standard group and 74 in the prospective US-marked group. Baseline characteristics of both groups were similar. The primary outcome showed no difference between US-marked group and control (38% vs 36%; difference: 1.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), -14.7 to 10.7]). Secondary outcomes showed no significant success differences by more than 1 provider (51% vs 39%; difference: 12.8% [95% CI, -25.7 to 0.3]) or in obtaining any spinal fluid (82% vs 79%; difference: 3.9% [95% CI -13.3 to 7.5]). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in success between US-marked and standard lumbar punctures in infants by different providers.

Accuracy and Interrater Reliability of Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Image Interpretation for Intussusception.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy and interrater reliability of (1) point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) image interpretation for identification of intussusception and (2) reliability of secondary signs associated with intussusception among experts compared with novice POCUS reviewers. METHODS: We conducted a planned secondary analysis of a prospective, convenience sample of children aged 3 months to 6 years who were evaluated with POCUS for intussusception across 17 international pediatric emergency departments between October 2018 and December 2020. A random sample of 100 POCUS examinations was reviewed by novice and expert POCUS reviewers. The primary outcome was identification of the presence or absence of intussusception. Secondary outcomes included intussusception size and the presence of trapped free fluid or echogenic foci. Accuracy was summarized using sensitivity and specificity, which were estimated via generalized mixed effects logistic regression. Interrater reliability was summarized via Light's κ statistics with bootstrapped standard errors (SEs). Accuracy and reliability of expert and novice POCUS reviewers were compared. RESULTS: Eighteen expert and 16 novice POCUS reviewers completed the reviews. The average expert sensitivity was 94.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.6-97.5), and the specificity was 94.3% (95% CI, 90.3-96.7), significantly higher than the average novice sensitivity of 84.7% (95% CI, 74.3-91.4) and specificity of 80.4% (95% CI, 72.4, 86.7). κ was significantly greater for expert (0.679, SE 0.039) compared with novice POCUS reviewers (0.424, SE 0.044; difference 0.256, SE 0.033). For our secondary outcome measure of intussusception size, κ was significantly greater for experts (0.661, SE 0.038) compared with novices (0.397, SE 0.041; difference 0.264, SE 0.029). Interrater reliability was weak for expert and minimal for novice reviewers regarding the detection of trapped free fluid and echogenic foci. CONCLUSIONS: Expert POCUS reviewers demonstrate high accuracy and moderate interrater reliability when identifying intussusception via image interpretation and perform better than novice reviewers.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Intussusception: A Multicenter, Noninferiority Study of Paired Diagnostic Tests.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) performed by experienced clinician sonologists compared to radiology-performed ultrasound (RADUS) for detection of clinically important intussusception, defined as intussusception requiring radiographic or surgical reduction. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, noninferiority, observational study among a convenience sample of children aged 3 months to 6 years treated in tertiary care emergency departments across North and Central America, Europe, and Australia. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of POCUS and RADUS with respect to clinically important intussusception. Sample size was determined using a 4-percentage-point noninferiority margin for the absolute difference in accuracy. Secondary outcomes included agreement between POCUS and RADUS for identification of secondary sonographic findings. RESULTS: The analysis included 256 children across 17 sites (35 sonologists). Of the 256 children, 58 (22.7%) had clinically important intussusception. POCUS identified 60 (23.4%) children with clinically important intussusception. The diagnostic accuracy of POCUS was 97.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.9% to 99.0%), compared to 99.3% (95% CI 96.8% to 99.9%) for RADUS. The absolute difference between the accuracy of RADUS and that of POCUS was 1.5 percentage points (95% CI -0.6 to 3.6). Sensitivity for POCUS was 96.6% (95% CI 87.2% to 99.1%), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 94.7% to 99.2%). Agreement was high between POCUS and RADUS for identification of trapped free fluid (83.3%, n=40/48) and decreased color Doppler signal (95.7%, n=22/23). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS performed by experienced clinician sonologists may be noninferior to that of RADUS for detection of clinically important intussusception. Given the limitations of convenience sampling and spectrum bias, a larger randomized controlled trial is warranted.

Evaluation of Ventricle Size Measurements in Infants by Pediatric Emergency Medicine Physicians.

OBJECTIVES: The identification of hydrocephalus in infants by pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians using cranial point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has not been evaluated. We aimed to conduct a pilot/proof-of-concept study to evaluate whether PEM physicians can identify hydrocephalus (anterior horn width >5 mm) in 15 infants (mean 69 ± 42 days old) from the neonatal intensive care unit using POCUS. Our exploratory aims were to determine the test characteristics of cranial POCUS performed by PEM physicians for diagnosing hydrocephalus and the interrater reliability between measurements made by the PEM physicians and the radiologist. METHODS: Depending on the availability, 1 or 2 PEM physicians performed a cranial POCUS through the open anterior fontanel for each infant after a 30-minute didactic lecture to determine the size of the left and right ventricles by measuring the anterior horn width at the foramen of Monroe in coronal view. Within 1 week, an ultrasound (US) technologist performed a cranial US and a radiologist determined the ventricle sizes from the US images; these measurements were the criterion standard. RESULTS: A radiologist determined 12 of the 30 ventricles as hydrocephalic. The sensitivity and specificity of the PEM physicians performed cranial POCUS was 66.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.9%-90.1%) and 94.4% (95% CI, 72.7%-99.9%), whereas the positive and negative predictive values were 88.9% (95% CI, 53.3%-98.2%) and 81.0% (95% CI, 65.5%-90.5%), respectively. The interrater reliability between the PEM physician's and radiologist's measurements was r = 0.91. The entire POCUS examinations performed by the PEM physicians took an average of 1.5 minutes. The time between the cranial POCUS and the radiology US was, on average, 4 days. CONCLUSIONS: While the PEM physicians in our study were able to determine the absence of hydrocephalus in infants with high specificity using cranial POCUS, there was insufficient evidence to support the use of this modality for identifying hydrocephalus. Future studies with more participants are warranted to accurately determine test characteristics.

Parents' Perspective on Trainees Performing Invasive Procedures: A Qualitative Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: When obtaining informed permission from parents for invasive procedures, trainees and supervisors often do not disclose information about the trainee's level of experience. The objectives of this study were 3-fold: (1) to assess parents' understanding of both academic medical training and the role of the trainee and the supervisor, (2) to explore parents' preferences about transparency related to a trainee's experience, and (3) to examine parents' willingness to allow trainees to perform invasive procedures. METHODS: This qualitative study involved 23 one-on-one interviews with parents of infants younger than 30 days who had undergone a lumbar puncture. In line with grounded theory, researchers independently coded transcripts and then collectively refined codes and created themes. Data collection and analysis continued until thematic saturation was achieved. In addition, to triangulate the findings, a focus group was conducted with Yale School of Medicine's Community Bioethics Forum. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed 4 primary themes: (1) the invasive nature of a lumbar puncture and the vulnerability of the newborn creates fear in parents, which may be mitigated by improved communication; (2) parents have varying degrees of awareness of the medical training system; (3) most parents expect transparency about provider experience level and trust that a qualified provider will be performing the procedure; and (4) parents prefer an experienced provider to perform a procedure, but supervisor presence may be a qualifying factor for inexperienced providers. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians must find a way to improve transparency when caring for pediatric patients while still developing critical procedural skills.

Diagnosis of a Posterior Fracture Dislocation of the Medial Clavicle in an Adolescent With Point-of-Care Ultrasound.

We report a case of an adolescent patient with medial clavicular tenderness after a fall on the lateral left shoulder. Initial radiographs did not reveal a fracture or dislocation. Point-of-care ultrasound was used to diagnose a posterior clavicular fracture dislocation.

Pediatric emergency medicine point-of-care ultrasound: summary of the evidence.

The utility of point-of-care ultrasound is well supported by the medical literature. Consequently, pediatric emergency medicine providers have embraced this technology in everyday practice. Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement endorsing the use of point-of-care ultrasound by pediatric emergency medicine providers.  To date, there is no standard guideline for the practice of point-of-care ultrasound for this specialty. This document serves as an initial step in the detailed "how to" and description of individual point-of-care ultrasound examinations.  Pediatric emergency medicine providers should refer to this paper as reference for published research, objectives for learners, and standardized reporting guidelines.

The greater good: how supervising physicians make entrustment decisions in the pediatric emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Graduate medical education is transitioning to the use of entrustable professional activities to contextualize educational competencies. Factors influencing entrustment decisions have been reported in adult medicine. Knowing how such decisions are made in pediatrics is critical to this transition. PURPOSE: To understand how supervisors determine the level of procedural supervision to provide a resident, taking into consideration simulation performance; to understand factors that affect supervisors' transparency to parents about residents' procedural experience. METHODS: We conducted 18 one-on-one interviews with supervisors in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department, iteratively revising interview questions as patterns in the data were elucidated. Two researchers independently coded transcripts and then met with the investigative team to refine codes and create themes. RESULTS: Five factors influenced supervisors' entrustment decisions: 1) resident characteristics that include self-reported confidence, seniority, and prior interactions with the resident; 2) supervisor style; 3) nature of the procedure/characteristics of the patient; 4) environmental factors; and 5) parental preferences. Supervisors thought that task-based simulators provided practice opportunities but that simulated performance did not provide evidence for entrustment. Supervisors reported selectively omitting details about a resident's experience level to families to optimize experiential learning for residents they entrusted to perform a procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In pediatrics, supervisors consider various factors when making decisions regarding resident procedural readiness, including parental preferences. An educational system using entrustable professional activities may facilitate holistic assessment and foster expertise-informed decisions about residents' progression toward entrustment; such a system may also lessen supervisors' need to omit information to parents about residents' procedural readiness.