Point-of-care ultrasound needs assessment in a paediatric acute care setting in Malawi.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in an acute-care paediatric setting in Malawi, including clinical indications, types of examinations and frequency of positive findings. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of a convenience sample of POCUS examinations performed in one tertiary referral hospital in Lilongwe, Malawi over 1 year. POCUS examinations were performed by Paediatric Emergency Medicine physician consultants as part of routine clinical practice and at the request of local clinicians. Images were saved along with the clinical indication and physician interpretation for quality review. Ultrasounds performed by the radiology department and those examinations that were technically faulty, missing clinical application or interpretation were excluded. RESULTS: In total, 225 ultrasounds of 142 patients were analysed. The most common clinical indications for which examinations were completed were respiratory distress (23%), oedema (11.7%) and shock/arrest (6.2%). The most common examinations performed were cardiac (41.8%) and lung (15.1%), focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST; 12.9%) and ultrasound-guided procedural examinations (9.8%). Pathology was identified in 68% of non-procedural examinations. Cardiac examinations demonstrated significant pathology, including reduced cardiac function (12.8%), gross cardiac structural abnormality (11.8%) and pericardial effusion (10.3%). CONCLUSIONS: POCUS was used for both clinical decision-making and procedural guidance, and a significant number of POCUS examinations yielded positive findings. Thus, we propose that cardiopulmonary, FAST and procedural examinations should be considered in future for the POCUS curriculum in this setting.

Who is monitoring your infections: shouldn't you be?

BACKGROUND: In the era of pay for performance and outcome comparisons among institutions, it is imperative to have reliable and accurate surveillance methodology for monitoring infectious complications. The current monitoring standard often involves a combination of prospective and retrospective analysis by trained infection control (IC) teams. We have developed a medical informatics application, the Surgical Intensive Care-Infection Registry (SIC-IR), to assist with infection surveillance. The objectives of this study were to: (1) Evaluate for differences in data gathered between the current IC practices and SIC-IR; and (2) determine which method has the best sensitivity and specificity for identifying ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: A prospective analysis was conducted in two surgical and trauma intensive care units (STICU) at a level I trauma center (Unit 1: 8 months, Unit 2: 4 months). Data were collected simultaneously by the SIC-IR system at the point of patient care and by IC utilizing multiple administrative and clinical modalities. Data collected by both systems included patient days, ventilator days, central line days, number of VAPs, and number of catheter-related blood steam infections (CR-BSIs). Both VAPs and CR-BSIs were classified using the definitions of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The VAPs were analyzed individually, and true infections were defined by a physician panel blinded to methodology of surveillance. Using these true infections as a reference standard, sensitivity and specificity for both SIC-IR and IC were determined. RESULTS: A total of 769 patients were evaluated by both surveillance systems. There were statistical differences between the median number of patient days/month and ventilator-days/month when IC was compared with SIC-IR. There was no difference in the rates of CR-BSI/1,000 central line days per month. However, VAP rates were significantly different for the two surveillance methodologies (SIC-IR: 14.8/1,000 ventilator days, IC: 8.4/1,000 ventilator days; p = 0.008). The physician panel identified 40 patients (5%) who had 43 VAPs. The SIC-IR identified 39 and IC documented 22 of the 40 patients with VAP. The SIC-IR had a sensitivity and specificity of 97% and 100%, respectively, for identifying VAP and for IC, a sensitivity of 56% and a specificity of 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing SIC-IR at the point of patient care by a multidisciplinary STICU team offers more accurate infection surveillance with high sensitivity and specificity. This monitoring can be accomplished without additional resources and engages the physicians treating the patient.