Essentials of PEM Fellowship Part 2: The Profession in Entrustable Professional Activities.

This article is the second in a 7-part series that aims to comprehensively describe the current state and future directions of pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellowship training from the essential requirements to considerations for successfully administering and managing a program to the careers that may be anticipated upon program completion. This article describes the development of PEM entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and the relationship of these EPAs with existing taxonomies of assessment and learning within PEM fellowship. It summarizes the field in concepts that can be taught and assessed, packaging the PEM subspecialty into EPAs.

Store-and-forward teledermatology versus in-person visits: a comparison in pediatric teledermatology clinic.

BACKGROUND: The role of teledermatology in the diagnosis of pediatric skin conditions has not been studied exclusively. OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of a pediatric dermatologist to correctly diagnose rashes by history and digital images. METHODS: Consecutive, new referrals to the pediatric dermatology clinic with a rash were enrolled in the study. A history, demographic data, and digital photographs were obtained from each patient. The data were reviewed by a pediatric dermatologist who made a preliminary diagnosis. The child was then seen in person and a final diagnosis was made. Concordance and kappa values were calculated. Cases of diagnostic disagreement were analyzed for their effect on management. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients were enrolled. Diagnostic concordance was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73%-88%), and the kappa value was 0.80. Clinically relevant disagreement occurred in 12% of cases. LIMITATIONS: The study was performed at a single site, theoretically limiting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Teledermatology appears to have a useful role in the care of children with rashes.

Reported Knowledge and Management of Potential Penicillin Allergy in Children.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) and primary care provider (PCP) providers are the most likely physicians to initially label a child as allergic to penicillin. Differences in knowledge and management of reported penicillin allergy between these 2 groups have not been well characterized. METHODS: A cross-sectional, 20-question survey was administered to PEM and PCPs to ascertain differential knowledge and management of penicillin allergy. Knowledge regarding high- and low-risk symptoms for true allergy and extent of history taking regarding allergy were compared between the 2 groups using t tests, Chi-square, and Wilcoxon tests. RESULTS: In total, 182 PEM and 54 PCPs completed the survey. PEM and PCPs reported that 74.1 ± 19.5% and 69.0 ± 23.8% of patients with remote low-risk symptoms of allergy could tolerate penicillin without an allergic reaction. PEM and PCPs incorrectly identified low-risk symptoms of allergy as high-risk, including vomiting with medication administration and delayed skin rash. PCPs took more detailed allergy histories when compared with PEM providers. In total, 143 (78.5%) of PEM providers and 51 (94.4%) PCPs were interested in using a penicillin allergy questionnaire to segregate children into high- or low-risk categories. CONCLUSIONS: Most pediatric providers believe that children with a remote history of low-risk allergy symptoms could tolerate penicillin without an allergic reaction; however, this is infrequently acted upon. Both PEM and PCP providers were likely to classify low-risk symptoms as high-risk and infrequently referred children for further detailed allergy assessment. Both groups were receptive to decision support measures to facilitate improved penicillin allergy classification and labeling and support antibiotic appropriateness in their patients.