Parent and Clinician Views on Not Using Antibiotics for Mild Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: Preschool-aged children with mild community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) routinely receive antibiotics even though most infections are viral. We sought to identify barriers to the implementation of a "no antibiotic" strategy for mild CAP in young children. METHODS: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted in a large pediatric hospital in the United States from January 2021 to July 2021. Parents of young children diagnosed with mild CAP in the previous 3 years and clinicians practicing in outpatient settings (pediatric emergency department, community emergency department, general pediatrics offices) were included. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 38 respondents (18 parents, 20 clinicians). No parent heard of the no antibiotic strategy, and parents varied in their support for the approach. Degree of support related to their desire to avoid unnecessary medications, trust in clinicians, the emotional difficulty of caring for a sick child, desire for relief of suffering, willingness to accept the risk of unnecessary antibiotics, and judgment about the child's illness severity. Eleven (55%) clinicians were familiar with guidelines specifying a no antibiotic strategy. They identified challenges in not using antibiotics, including diagnostic uncertainty, consequences of undertreatment, parental expectations, follow-up concerns, and acceptance of the risks of unnecessary antibiotic treatment of many children if it means avoiding adverse outcomes for some children. CONCLUSIONS: Although both parents and clinicians expressed broad support for the judicious use of antibiotics, pneumonia presents stewardship challenges. Interventions will need to consider the emotional, social, and logistical aspects of managing pneumonia, in addition to developing techniques to improve diagnosis.

Screening for Youth Firearm Violence Exposure in Primary Care.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess a modified gun violence exposure tool at a pediatric clinic on the West Side of Chicago to identify youth at high risk of future gun violence. Methods: A modified version of the SaFETy gun violence exposure tool, studied in a community pediatric primary care setting, was implemented from June to August 2021. Patients and pediatric clinicians were surveyed after pilot. Results: Of 508 eligible patients, 341 youth (67.1%) completed the SaFETy tool. None had a SaFETy score ≥6, the threshold for immediate referral. Over a quarter (26.4%) of youth had scores of 1-5, and of those, 7.8% were referred at the clinician's discretion. Youth (n=84) participants randomly selected to complete an anonymous survey provided feedback about the SaFETY tool, reporting that the questions were easy to understand (92%). All 6 pediatric clinicians surveyed agreed that the tool helped to identify youth exposed to gun violence. Conclusions: Screening for gun violence exposure among youth is logistically feasible in the pediatric outpatient setting. A more sensitive validated tool to stratify low-/medium-risk patients in the primary care setting is needed.