Patterns of Organ Dysfunction in Critically Ill Children Based on PODIUM Criteria.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, prognostic performance, and generalizability of the Pediatric Organ Dysfunction Information Update Mandate (PODIUM) organ dysfunction criteria using electronic health record (EHR) data. Additionally, we sought to compare the performance of the PODIUM criteria with the organ dysfunction criteria proposed by the 2005 International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference (IPSCC). METHODS: Retrospective observational cohort study of critically ill children at 2 medical centers in the United States between 2010 and 2018. We assessed prevalence of organ dysfunction based on the PODIUM and IPSCC criteria for each 24-hour period from admission to 28 days. We studied the prognostic performance of the criteria to discriminate in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 22 427 PICU admissions met inclusion criteria, and in-hospital mortality was 2.3%. The cumulative incidence of each PODIUM organ dysfunction ranged from 15% to 30%, with an in-hospital mortality of 6% to 10% for most organ systems. The number of concurrent PODIUM organ dysfunctions demonstrated good-to-excellent discrimination for in-hospital mortality (area under the curve 0.87-0.93 for day 1 through 28) and compared favorably to the IPSCC criteria (area under the curve 0.84-0.92, P < .001 to P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: We present the first evaluation of the PODIUM organ dysfunction criteria in 2 EHR databases. The use of the PODIUM organ dysfunction criteria appears promising for epidemiologic and clinical research studies using EHR data. More studies are needed to evaluate the PODIUM criteria that are not routinely collected in structured format in EHR databases.

Point of care ultrasound for all by all: A multidisciplinary survey across a large quaternary care medical system.

PURPOSE: We sought to understand current POCUS practices and comfort as well as assess opinions about POCUS across our medical system via a survey to guide program development. METHODS: This study was conducted as a 19 question RedCap survey with multiple parts. Respondents were queried for demographics as well as experience with, attitudes toward, and clinical use of POCUS in common critical care scenarios. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 343 individuals, a response rate of 30%. Most respondents "agreed" that POCUS is a needed skill and helped them provide safer care (78% and 86% agreement). Most faculty and trainees reported some POCUS training (62% and 88%) and at least weekly use. Trainees rated themselves more comfortable than faculty for most exam types. The majority of faculty rated their POCUS education as inadequate while trainees had mixed responses. CONCLUSIONS: POCUS is a frequently used tool, yet users are less confident in their skills than expected. POCUS applications are viewed as needed for future practice but there is a substantial need for improved education among faculty and trainees. Pooling resources and sharing educational initiatives across multiple specialties may help improve POCUS implementation.

Interaction of Critical Care Practitioners With a Decision Support Tool for Weaning Mechanical Ventilation in Children.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that ventilator weaning protocols provide benefit to children receiving mechanical ventilation, but many protocols do not include explicit instructions for decreasing ventilator support from maximal settings. We evaluated care provider opinions on ventilator weaning recommendations made by a computerized decision support tool. METHODS: Recommendations for ventilator adjustment were generated using a computerized decision support tool based on the ARDSNet protocol using data from children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure admitted to the pediatric ICU (PICU). Attending physicians, fellows, nurse practitioners, and respiratory therapists (RTs) caring for these patients answered a brief survey to assess whether recommendations were reasonable and whether the practitioner believed they could be implemented. RESULTS: RTs completed 99 surveys and ICU providers completed 96 surveys based on data from 10 patients. RTs and ICU providers found 63.9% and 65.3% of recommendations reasonable, respectively. There were 5 instances of disagreement between RTs and ICU providers. The percent of recommendations that RTs thought could be implemented was 29.9%, whereas this figure for ICU providers was 26.3%, with 4 instances of disagreement. Free-text responses indicated that many RTs and ICU providers were concerned about disrupting current patient stability and low tidal volumes. CONCLUSIONS: On initial evaluation, the decision support tool did not appear to be highly acceptable to RTs and ICU providers in our setting because recommendations were rarely implemented. In addition, acceptability did not increase over time as patients generally improved. Most respondents preferred to make no ventilator changes and felt the recommendations were too aggressive. The notable barrier to use was a perception of potential patient instability with weaning.