Interpretation of Cardiac Standstill in Children Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the level of agreement among pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians in whether various point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) video clips represent cardiac standstill in children and to highlight the factors that may be associated with the lack of agreement. METHODS: A single, online, cross-sectional, convenience sample survey was administered to PEM attendings and fellows with variable ultrasound experience. PEM attendings with an experience of 25 cardiac POCUS scans or more were the primary subgroup based on ultrasound proficiency set by the American College of Emergency Physicians. The survey contained 11 unique, 6-second video clips of cardiac POCUS performed during pulseless arrest in pediatric patients and asked the respondent if the video clip represented a cardiac standstill. The level of interobserver agreement was determined using the Krippendorff's α (Kα) coefficient across the subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 263 PEM attendings and fellows completed the survey (9.9% response rate). Of the 263 total responses, 110 responses were from the primary subgroup of experienced PEM attendings with at least 25 previously seen cardiac POCUS scans. Across all video clips, PEM attendings with 25 scans or more had an acceptable agreement (Kα=0.740; 95% CI 0.735 to 0.745). The agreement was the highest for video clips wherein the wall motion corresponded to the valve motion. However, the agreement fell to unacceptable levels (Kα=0.304; 95% CI 0.287 to 0.321) across video clips wherein the wall motion occurred without the valve motion. CONCLUSION: There is an overall acceptable interobserver agreement when interpreting cardiac standstill among PEM attendings with an experience of at least 25 previously reported cardiac POCUS scans. However, factors that may influence the lack of agreement include discordances between the wall and valve motion, suboptimal views, and the lack of a formal reference standard. More specific consensus reference standards of pediatric cardiac standstill may help to improve interobserver agreement moving forward and should include more specific details regarding the wall and valve motion.

Implementation of ED I-PASS as a Standardized Handoff Tool in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Communication, failures during patient handoffs are a significant cause of medical error. There is a paucity of data on standardized handoff tools for intershift transitions of care in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM). The purpose of this quality improvement (QI) initiative was to improve handoffs between PEM attending physicians (i.e., supervising physicians ultimately responsible for patient care) through the implementation of a modified I-PASS tool (ED I-PASS). Our aims were to: (1) increase the proportion of physicians using ED I-PASS by two-thirds and (2) decrease the proportion reporting information loss during shift change by one-third, over a 6-month period. METHODS: After literature and stakeholder review, Expected Disposition, Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situational Awareness, Synthesis by Receiver (ED I-PASS) was implemented using iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, incorporating: trained "super-users"; print and electronic cognitive support tools; direct observation; and general and targeted feedback. Implementation occurred from September to April of 2021, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when patient volumes were significantly lower than prepandemic levels. Data from observed handoffs were collected for process outcomes. Surveys regarding handoff practices were distributed before and after ED I-PASS implementation. RESULTS: 82.8% of participants completed follow-up surveys, and 69.6% of PEM physicians were observed performing a handoff. Use of ED I-PASS increased from 7.1% to 87.5% ( p < .001) and the reported perceived loss of important patient information during transitions of care decreased 50%, from 75.0% to 37.5% ( p = .02). Most (76.0%) participants reported satisfaction with ED I-PASS, despite half citing a perceived increase in handoff length. 54.2% reported a concurrent increase in written handoff documentation during the intervention. CONCLUSION: ED I-PASS can be successfully implemented among attending physicians in the pediatric emergency department setting. Its use resulted in significant decreases in reported perceived loss of patient information during intershift handoffs.