Interfacility Referral Communication for PICU Transfer.

OBJECTIVES: For patients requiring transfer to a higher level of care, excellent interfacility communication is essential. Our objective was to characterize verbal handoffs for urgent interfacility transfers of children to the PICU and compare these characteristics with known elements of high-quality intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs. DESIGN: Mixed methods retrospective study of audio-recorded referral calls between referring clinicians and receiving PICU physicians for urgent interfacility PICU transfers. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral PICU. PATIENTS: Children 0-18 years old admitted to a single PICU following interfacility transfer over a 4-month period (October 2019 to January 2020). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We reviewed interfacility referral phone calls for 49 patients. Referral calls between clinicians lasted a median of 9.7 minutes (interquartile range, 6.8-14.5 min). Most referring clinicians provided information on history (96%), physical examination (94%), test results (94%), and interventions (98%). Fewer clinicians provided assessments of illness severity (87%) or code status (19%). Seventy-seven percent of referring clinicians and 6% of receiving PICU physicians stated the working diagnosis. Only 9% of PICU physicians summarized information received. Interfacility handoffs usually involved: 1) indirect references to illness severity and diagnosis rather than explicit discussions, 2) justifications for PICU admission, 3) statements communicating and addressing uncertainty, and 4) statements indicating the referring hospital's reliance on PICU resources. Interfacility referral communication was similar to intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs with some key differences: 1) use of contextual information for appropriate PICU triage, 2) difference in expertise between communicating clinicians, and 3) reliance of referring clinicians and PICU physicians on each other for accurate information and medical/transport guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Interfacility PICU referral communication shared characteristics with intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs; however, communication did not adhere to known elements of high-quality handovers. Structured tools specific to PICU interfacility referral communication must be developed and investigated for effectiveness in improving communication and patient outcomes.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Diagnostic Error in Pediatric Critical Care: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: Effective interventions to prevent diagnostic error among critically ill children should be informed by diagnostic error prevalence and etiologies. We aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of diagnostic errors and identify factors associated with error in patients admitted to the PICU. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study using structured medical record review by trained clinicians using the Revised Safer Dx instrument to identify diagnostic error (defined as missed opportunities in diagnosis). Cases with potential errors were further reviewed by four pediatric intensivists who made final consensus determinations of diagnostic error occurrence. Demographic, clinical, clinician, and encounter data were also collected. SETTING: Four academic tertiary-referral PICUs. PATIENTS: Eight hundred eighty-two randomly selected patients 0-18 years old who were nonelectively admitted to participating PICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 882 patient admissions, 13 (1.5%) had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Infections (46%) and respiratory conditions (23%) were the most common missed diagnoses. One diagnostic error caused harm with a prolonged hospital stay. Common missed diagnostic opportunities included failure to consider the diagnosis despite a suggestive history (69%) and failure to broaden diagnostic testing (69%). Unadjusted analysis identified more diagnostic errors in patients with atypical presentations (23.1% vs 3.6%, p = 0.011), neurologic chief complaints (46.2% vs 18.8%, p = 0.024), admitting intensivists greater than or equal to 45 years old (92.3% vs 65.1%, p = 0.042), admitting intensivists with more service weeks/year (mean 12.8 vs 10.9 wk, p = 0.031), and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (77% vs 25.1%, p < 0.001). Generalized linear mixed models determined that atypical presentation (odds ratio [OR] 4.58; 95% CI, 0.94-17.1) and diagnostic uncertainty on admission (OR 9.67; 95% CI, 2.86-44.0) were significantly associated with diagnostic error. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill children, 1.5% had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission. Diagnostic errors were associated with atypical presentations and diagnostic uncertainty on admission, suggesting possible targets for intervention.

Diagnosis Documentation of Critically Ill Children at Admission to a PICU.

OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary PICU teams must effectively share information while caring for critically ill children. Clinical documentation helps clinicians develop a shared understanding of the patient's diagnosis, which informs decision-making. However, diagnosis-related documentation in the PICU is understudied, thus limiting insights into how pediatric intensivists convey their diagnostic reasoning. Our objective was to describe how pediatric critical care clinicians document patients' diagnoses at PICU admission. DESIGN: Retrospective mixed methods study describing diagnosis documentation in electronic health records. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral PICU. PATIENTS: Children 0-17 years old admitted nonelectively to a single PICU over 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred PICU admission notes for 96 unique patients were reviewed. In 87% of notes, both attending physicians and residents or advanced practice providers documented a primary diagnosis; in 13%, primary diagnoses were documented by residents or advanced practice providers alone. Most diagnoses (72%) were written as narrative free text, 11% were documented as problem lists/billing codes, and 17% used both formats. At least one rationale was documented to justify the primary diagnosis in 91% of notes. Diagnostic uncertainty was present in 52% of notes, most commonly suggested by clinicians' use of words indicating uncertainty (65%) and documentation of differential diagnoses (60%). Clinicians' integration and interpretation of information varied in terms of: 1) organization of diagnosis narratives, 2) use of contextual details to clarify the diagnosis, and 3) expression of diagnostic uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: In this descriptive study, most PICU admission notes documented a rationale for the primary diagnosis and expressed diagnostic uncertainty. Clinicians varied widely in how they organized diagnostic information, used contextual details to clarify the diagnosis, and expressed uncertainty. Future work is needed to determine how diagnosis narratives affect clinical decision-making, patient care, and outcomes.

Diagnostic Errors in Pediatric Critical Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the literature on prevalence, impact, and contributing factors related to diagnostic error in the PICU. DATA SOURCES: Search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Studies on diagnostic error and the diagnostic process in pediatric critical care were included. Non-English studies with no translation, case reports/series, studies providing no information on diagnostic error, studies focused on non-PICU populations, and studies focused on a single condition/disease or a single diagnostic test/tool were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on research design, objectives, study sample, and results pertaining to the prevalence, impact, and factors associated with diagnostic error were abstracted from each study. DATA SYNTHESIS: Using independent tiered review, 396 abstracts were screened, and 17 studies (14 full-text, 3 abstracts) were ultimately included. Fifteen of 17 studies (88%) had an observational research design. Autopsy studies (autopsy rates were 20-47%) showed a 10-23% rate of missed major diagnoses; 5-16% of autopsy-discovered diagnostic errors had a potential adverse impact on survival and would have changed management. Retrospective record reviews reported varying rates of diagnostic error from 8% in a general PICU population to 12% among unexpected critical admissions and 21-25% of patients discussed at PICU morbidity and mortality conferences. Cardiovascular, infectious, congenital, and neurologic conditions were most commonly misdiagnosed. Systems factors (40-67%), cognitive factors (20-3%), and both systems and cognitive factors (40%) were associated with diagnostic error. Limited information was available on the impact of misdiagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of diagnostic errors in the PICU is limited. Future work to understand diagnostic errors should involve a balanced focus between studying the diagnosis of individual diseases and uncovering common system- and process-related determinants of diagnostic error.

Factors Associated With Diagnostic Error on Admission to a PICU: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic errors can harm critically ill children. However, we know little about their prevalence in PICUs and factors associated with error. The objective of this pilot study was to determine feasibility of record review to identify patient, provider, and work system factors associated with diagnostic errors during the first 12 hours after PICU admission. DESIGN: Pilot retrospective cohort study with structured record review using a structured tool (Safer Dx instrument) to identify diagnostic error. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral PICU. PATIENTS: Patients 0-17 years old admitted nonelectively to the PICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four of 50 patients (8%) had diagnostic errors in the first 12 hours after admission. The Safer Dx instrument helped identify delayed diagnoses of chronic ear infection, increased intracranial pressure (two cases), and Bartonella encephalitis. We calculated that 610 PICU admissions are needed to achieve 80% power (α = 0.05) to detect significant associations with error. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study found four patients with diagnostic error out of 50 children admitted nonelectively to a PICU. Retrospective record review using a structured tool to identify diagnostic errors is feasible in this population. Pilot data are being used to inform a larger and more definitive multicenter study.

Career Development Support in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine: A National Survey of Fellows and Junior Faculty.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the perceptions of current pediatric critical care medicine fellows and junior faculty regarding the extent and quality of career development support received during fellowship training. DESIGN: Web-based cross-sectional survey open from September to November 2015. SETTING: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited pediatric critical care medicine fellowship programs. SUBJECTS: Pediatric critical care medicine fellows (second yr or higher) and junior faculty (within 5 yr of completing a pediatric critical care medicine fellowship program). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 129 respondents to the survey, representing 63% of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited pediatric critical care medicine fellowship programs. Respondents were evenly divided between fellows and junior faculty. Nearly, half (49%) of respondents reported that their pediatric critical care medicine fellowship program provided a formal career development curriculum. Ideal career tracks chosen included academic clinician educator (64%), physician-scientist (27%), community-based (nonacademic) clinician (11%), and administrator (11%). There was a disparity in focused career development support provided by programs, with a minority providing good support for those pursuing a community-based clinician track (32%) or administrator track (16%). Only 43% of fellows perceived that they have a good chance of obtaining their ideal pediatric critical care medicine position, with the most common perceived barrier being increased competition for limited job opportunities. Most respondents expressed interest in a program specific to pediatric critical care medicine career development that is sponsored by a national professional organization. CONCLUSIONS: Most pediatric critical care medicine fellows and junior faculty reported good to excellent career development support during fellowship. However, important gaps remain, particularly for those pursuing community-based (nonacademic) and administrative tracks. Fellows were uncertain regarding future pediatric critical care medicine employment and their ability to pursue ideal career tracks. There may be a role for professional organizations to provide additional resources for career development in pediatric critical care medicine.

Transforming the Morbidity and Mortality Conference to Promote Safety and Quality in a PICU.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of a structured systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference in improving the process of reviewing and responding to adverse events in a PICU. DESIGN: Prospective time series analysis before and after implementation of a systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference. SETTING: Single tertiary referral PICU in Baltimore, MD. PATIENTS: Thirty-three patients discussed before and 31 patients after implementation of a systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference over a total of 20 morbidity and mortality conferences, from April 2013 to March 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference incorporating elements of medical incident analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was a significant increase in meeting attendance (mean, 12 vs 31 attendees per morbidity and mortality conference; p < 0.001) after the systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference was instituted. There was no significant difference in the mean number of cases suggested (4.2 vs 4.6) or discussed (3.3 vs 3.1) per morbidity and mortality conference. There was also no significant difference in the mean number of adverse events identified per morbidity and mortality conference (3.4 vs 4.3). However, there was an increase in the proportion of cases discussed using a standard case review tool, but this did not reach statistical significance (27% vs 45%; p = 0.231). Nevertheless, we observed a significant increase in the mean number of quality improvement interventions suggested (2.4 vs 5.6; p < 0.001) and implemented (1.7 vs 4.4; p < 0.001) per morbidity and mortality conference. All adverse event categories identified had corresponding interventions suggested after the systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference was instituted compared with before (80% vs 100%). Intervention-to-adverse event ratios per category were also higher (mean, 0.6 vs 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: A structured systems-oriented PICU morbidity and mortality conference incorporating elements of medical incident analysis improves the process of reviewing and responding to adverse events by significantly increasing quality improvement interventions suggested and implemented. Future work would involve testing locally adapted versions of the systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference in multiple inpatient settings.

Diagnostic Errors in a PICU: Insights From the Morbidity and Mortality Conference.

OBJECTIVES: To describe diagnostic errors identified among patients discussed at a PICU morbidity and mortality conference in terms of Goldman classification, medical category, severity, preventability, contributing factors, and occurrence in the diagnostic process. DESIGN: Retrospective record review of morbidity and mortality conference agendas, patient charts, and autopsy reports. SETTING: Single tertiary referral PICU in Baltimore, MD. PATIENTS: Ninety-six patients discussed at the PICU morbidity and mortality conference from November 2011 to December 2012. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 96 patients (93%) discussed at the PICU morbidity and mortality conference had at least one identified safety event. A total of 377 safety events were identified. Twenty patients (21%) had identified misdiagnoses, comprising 5.3% of all safety events. Out of 20 total diagnostic errors identified, 35% were discovered at autopsy while 55% were reported primarily through the morbidity and mortality conference. Almost all diagnostic errors (95%) could have had an impact on patient survival or safety. Forty percent of errors did not cause actual patient harm, but 25% were severe enough to have potentially contributed to death (40% no harm vs 35% some harm vs 25% possibly contributed to death). Half of the diagnostic errors (50%) were rated as preventable. There were slightly more system-related factors (40%) solely contributing to diagnostic errors compared with cognitive factors (20%); however, 35% had both system and cognitive factors playing a role. Most errors involved vascular (35%) followed by neurologic (30%) events. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic errors in the PICU are not uncommon and potentially cause patient harm. Most appear to be preventable by targeting both cognitive- and system-related contributing factors. Prospective studies are needed to further determine how and why diagnostic errors occur in the PICU and what interventions would likely be effective for prevention.

The morbidity and mortality conference in PICUs in the United States: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: Determine how many morbidity and mortality conferences in PICUs across the United States conform to key elements of medical incident analysis. DESIGN: Web-based cross-sectional survey open from March to September 2013. SETTING: Seventy-five PICUs with regular morbidity and mortality conferences in the United States identified by cross-referencing publicly available databases. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary PICU staff who attend the PICU morbidity and mortality conference. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-four identified PICUs of 206 PICUs contacted had at least one respondent, with a 40.8% PICU-level response rate. The PICUs had a mean of three respondents (SD, 2.5; range, 1-13), with 45 of 84 (54%) having greater than one respondent. There were 305 total respondents to the survey, of which 220 of 300 (73%) self-identified as attending physicians and 47 of 300 (16%) as fellows. Four PICUs with only one respondent were excluded due to poor question response rates. Forty-nine of eighty-three PICUs (59%) had fellowship training programs. Five of eighty-three PICUs (6%) had no regular morbidity and mortality conference. Among 75 PICUs with regular morbidity and mortality conferences, morbidity and mortality conference process and structure characteristics varied widely. Among PICUs with greater than one respondent, when asked about morbidity and mortality conference conformity to each of the three key elements of medical incident analysis, 62-68% had intra-PICU disagreement among respondents. Fifteen of thirty-seven PICUs with greater than one respondent (41%) had intra-PICU disagreement on all three key elements. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidity and mortality conferences varied widely in structure and process across PICUs in the United States. There was marked disagreement as to whether the morbidity and mortality conference conforms to key elements of medical incident analysis, which might itself be revealing a lack of morbidity and mortality conference structure and consistency. Future research is needed to identify barriers to the use of the morbidity and mortality conference as a patient safety improvement tool and to test strategies for effective implementation linked to improved patient outcomes.

Developing methods to identify resilience and improve communication about diagnosis in pediatric primary care.

Communication underlies every stage of the diagnostic process. The Dialog Study aims to characterize the pediatric diagnostic journey, focusing on communication as a source of resilience, in order to ultimately develop and test the efficacy of a structured patient-centered communication intervention in improving outpatient diagnostic safety. In this manuscript, we will describe protocols, data collection instruments, methods, analytic approaches, and theoretical frameworks to be used in to characterize the patient journey in the Dialog Study. Our approach to characterization of the patient journey will attend to patient and structural factors, like race and racism, and language and language access, before developing interventions. Our mixed-methods approach is informed by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 3.0 framework (which describes the sociotechnical system underpinning diagnoses within the broader context of multiple interactions with different care settings over time) and the Safety II framework (which seeks to understand successful and unsuccessful adaptations to ongoing changes in demand and capacity within the healthcare system). We will assess the validity of different methods to detect diagnostic errors along the diagnostic journey. In doing so, we will emphasize the importance of viewing the diagnostic process as the product of communications situated in systems-of-work that are constantly adapting to everyday challenges.

Development and Evaluation of I-PASS-to-PICU: A Standard Electronic Template to Improve Referral Communication for Interfacility Transfers to the Pediatric ICU.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunication during interfacility handoffs to a higher level of care can harm critically ill children. Adapting evidence-based handoff interventions to interfacility referral communication may prevent adverse events. The objective of this project was to develop and evaluate a standard electronic referral template (I-PASS-to-PICU) to improve communication for interfacility pediatric ICU (PICU) transfers. METHODS: I-PASS-to-PICU was iteratively developed in a single PICU. A core PICU stakeholder group collaboratively designed an electronic health record (EHR)-supported clinical note template by adapting elements from I-PASS, an evidence-based handoff program, to support information exchange between referring clinicians and receiving PICU physicians. I-PASS-to-PICU is a receiver-driven tool used by PICU physicians to guide verbal communication and electronic documentation during PICU transfer calls. The template underwent three cycles of iterative evaluation and redesign informed by individual and group interviews of multidisciplinary PICU staff, usability testing using simulated and actual referral calls, and debriefing with PICU physicians. RESULTS: Individual and group interviews with 21 PICU staff members revealed that relevant, accurate, and concise information was needed for adequate admission preparedness. Time constraints and secondhand information transmission were identified as barriers. Usability testing with six receiving PICU physicians using simulated and actual calls revealed good usability on the validated System Usability Scale (SUS), with a mean score of 77.5 (standard deviation 10.9). Fellows indicated that most fields were relevant and that the template was feasible to use. CONCLUSION: I-PASS-to-PICU was technically feasible, usable, and relevant. The authors plan to further evaluate its effectiveness in improving information exchange during real-time PICU practice.

A Research Agenda for Diagnostic Excellence in Critical Care Medicine.

Diagnosing critically ill patients in the intensive care unit is difficult. As a result, diagnostic errors in the intensive care unit are common and have been shown to cause harm. Research to improve diagnosis in critical care medicine has accelerated in past years. However, much work remains to fully elucidate the diagnostic process in critical care. To achieve diagnostic excellence, interdisciplinary research is needed, adopting a balanced strategy of continued biomedical discovery while addressing the complex care delivery systems underpinning the diagnosis of critical illness.

Impact of subspecialty consultations on diagnosis in the pediatric intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVES: Intensivists and subspecialists often collaborate in diagnosing patients in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Our objectives were to characterize critically ill children for whom subspecialty consultations were requested, describe consultation characteristics, and determine consultations' impact on PICU diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using chart review in a single tertiary referral PICU including children admitted for acute illness. We collected data on patients with and without subspecialty consultations within the first three days of PICU admission and determined changes in PICU clinicians' diagnostic evaluation or treatment after consultations. RESULTS: PICU clinicians requested 152 subspecialty consultations for 87 of 101 (86%) patients. Consultations were requested equally for assistance in diagnosis (65%) and treatment (66%). Eighteen of 87 (21%) patients with consultations had a change in diagnosis from PICU admission to discharge, 11 (61%) attributed to subspecialty input. Thirty-nine (45%) patients with consultations had additional imaging and/or laboratory testing and 48 (55%) had medication changes and/or a procedure performed immediately after consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Subspecialty consultations were requested during a majority of PICU admissions. Consultations can influence the diagnosis and treatment of critically ill children. Future research should investigate PICU interdisciplinary collaborations, which are essential for teamwork in diagnosis.

Reporting Outcomes of Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patients to Referring Physicians via an Electronic Health Record-Based Feedback System.

BACKGROUND: Many critically ill children are initially evaluated in front-line settings by clinicians with variable pediatric training before they are transferred to a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Because clinicians learn from past performance, communicating outcomes of patients back to front-line clinicians who provide pediatric emergency care could be valuable; however, referring clinicians do not consistently receive this important feedback. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine the feasibility, usability, and clinical relevance of a semiautomated electronic health record (EHR)-supported system developed at a single institution to deliver timely and relevant PICU patient outcome feedback to referring emergency department (ED) physicians. METHODS: Guided by the Health Information Technology Safety Framework, we iteratively designed, implemented, and evaluated a semiautomated electronic feedback system leveraging the EHR in one institution. After conducting interviews and focus groups with stakeholders to understand the PICU-ED health care work system, we designed the EHR-supported feedback system by translating stakeholder, organizational, and usability objectives into feedback process and report requirements. Over 6 months, we completed three cycles of implementation and evaluation, wherein we analyzed EHR access logs, reviewed feedback reports sent, performed usability testing, and conducted physician interviews to determine the system's feasibility, usability, and clinical relevance. RESULTS: The EHR-supported feedback process is feasible with timely delivery and receipt of feedback reports. Usability testing revealed excellent Systems Usability Scale scores. According to physicians, the process was well-integrated into their clinical workflows and conferred minimal additional workload. Physicians also indicated that delivering and receiving consistent feedback was relevant to their clinical practice. CONCLUSION: An EHR-supported system to deliver timely and relevant PICU patient outcome feedback to referring ED physicians was feasible, usable, and important to physicians. Future work is needed to evaluate impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes and to investigate applicability to other clinical settings involved in similar care transitions.

An estimate of missed pediatric sepsis in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis of pediatric sepsis remains elusive. We estimated the risk of potentially missed pediatric sepsis in US emergency departments (EDs) and determined factors associated with its occurrence. METHODS: In a retrospective study of linked inpatient and ED records from four states using administrative data (excluding 40% with missing identifiers), we identified children admitted with severe sepsis and/or septic shock who had at least one ED treat-and-release visit in the 7 days prior to sepsis admission. An expert panel rated the likelihood of each ED visit being related to subsequent sepsis admission. We used multivariable regression to identify associations with potentially missed sepsis. RESULTS: Of 1945 patients admitted with severe sepsis/septic shock, 158 [8.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 6.9%-9.4%] had potentially missed sepsis during an antecedent treat-and-release ED visit. The odds of potentially missed sepsis were lower for each additional comorbid chronic condition [odds ratio (OR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92] and higher in California (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.34-3.82), Florida (OR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.95-5.70), and Massachusetts (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.35-6.09), compared to New York. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data can be used to screen large populations for potentially missed sepsis and identify cases that warrant detailed record review.

Referral communication for pediatric intensive care unit admission and the diagnosis of critically ill children: A pilot ethnography.

PURPOSE: The effect of communication between referring and accepting clinicians during patient transitions to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) on diagnostic quality is largely unknown. This pilot study aims to determine the feasibility of using focused ethnography to understand the relationship between referral communication and the diagnostic process for critically ill children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted focused ethnography in an academic tertiary referral PICU by directly observing the referral and admission of 3 non-electively admitted children 0-17 years old. We also conducted 21 semi-structured interviews of their parents and admitting PICU staff (intensivists, fellows/residents, medical students, nurses, and respiratory therapists) and reviewed their medical records post-discharge. RESULTS: Performing focused ethnography in a busy PICU is feasible. We identified three areas for additional exploration: (1) how information transfer affects the PICU diagnostic process; (2) how uncertainty in patient assessment affects the decision to transfer to the PICU; and (3) how the PICU team's expectations are influenced by referral communication. CONCLUSIONS: Focused ethnography in the PICU is feasible to investigate relationships between clinician referral communication and the diagnostic process for critically ill children.

Simulation to Train Pediatric ICU Teams in Endotracheal Intubation of Patients with COVID-19.

To prevent transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to healthcare workers, we must quickly implement workflow modifications in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Our objective was to rapidly train interdisciplinary PICU teams to safely perform endotracheal intubations in children with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 using a structured simulation education program. METHODS: We conducted a quality improvement study in a tertiary referral PICU. After developing stakeholder-driven guidelines for modified intubation in this population, we implemented a structured simulation program to train PICU physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists. We directly observed PICU teams' adherence to the modified intubation process before and after simulation sessions and compared participants' confidence using the Simulation Effectiveness Tool-Modified (SET-M, Likert scale range 0: do not agree to 2: strongly agree regarding statements of confidence). RESULTS: Fifty unique PICU staff members participated in 9 simulation sessions. Observed intubation performance improved, with teams executing a mean of 7.3-8.4 out of 9 recommended practices between simulation attempts (P = 0.024). Before undergoing simulation, PICU staff indicated that overall they did not feel prepared to intubate patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (mean SET-M score 0.9). After the simulation program, PICU staff confidence improved (mean SET-M score increased from 0.9 to 2, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PICU teams' performance and confidence in safely executing a modified endotracheal intubation process for children with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection improved using a rapidly deployed structured simulation education program.

Updates to referring clinicians regarding critically ill children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit: a state-wide survey.

Background Front-line clinicians are expected to make accurate and timely diagnostic decisions before transferring patients to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) but may not always learn their patients' outcomes. We evaluated the characteristics of post-transfer updates received by referring clinicians regarding PICU patients and determined preferences regarding content, delivery, and timing of such updates. Methods We administered an electronic cross-sectional survey to Iowa clinicians who billed for ≥5 pediatric patients or referred ≥1 patient to the University of Iowa (UI) PICU in the year before survey administration. Results One hundred and one clinicians (51 non-UI, 50 UI-affiliated) responded. Clinicians estimated that, on average, 8% of pediatric patients they saw over 1 year required PICU admission; clinicians received updates on 40% of patients. Seventy percent of UI clinicians obtained updates via self-initiated electronic record review, while 37% of non-UI clinicians relied on PICU communication (p = 0.013). Clinicians indicated that updates regarding diagnoses/outcomes will be most relevant to their practice. Among clinicians who received updates, 13% received unexpected information; 40% changed their practice as a result. Conclusions Clinicians received updates on less than half of the patients they referred to a PICU, although such updates could potentially influence clinical practice. Study findings will inform the development of a formal feedback system from the PICU to referring clinicians.