Comparison of injury patterns and interventions between adolescent, adult and paediatric trauma cases: a cross-sectional review of TARN data.

OBJECTIVES: The aim is to compare adolescent (10-24.99 years) trauma patterns and interventions to adult (≥25) and paediatric cases (<10) and to identify any transition points. DESIGN AND SETTING: Data were collected from the Trauma and Audit Research Network (TARN) over a 10-year period. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: After exclusions there were 505 162 TARN eligible cases. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare adolescent trauma patterns and interventions to those in paediatric and adult cohorts. Identify transition points for mechanism of injury (MOI) and interventions by individual year over the adolescent age range (10-24.99). RESULTS: Road traffic accidents are the most common MOI in the adolescent group, in contrast to both the paediatric and adult group where falls <2 m are most common. Violence-related injury (shootings and stabbings) are more common in the adolescent group, 9.4% compared with 0.3% and 1.5% in the paediatric and adult groups, respectively. The adolescent grouping had the highest median Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the highest proportion of interventions. The proportion of cases due to stabbing peaked at age 17 (11.8%) becoming the second most common MOI. The median ISS peaked at 13 at age 18. The percentage of cases that fulfil the definition of polytrauma enters double figures (11.8%) at age 15 reaching a peak of 17.6% at age 18. The use of blood products within the first 6 hours remains around 2% (1.6%-2.8%) until age 15 (3.4%), increasing to 4.7% at age 16. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patterns are more closely aligned between adult and paediatric cohorts than adolescence. The highest proportion of trauma interventions occur in the adolescent population. Analysing the adolescent cohort by year of age identified some common points for when descriptors or outcomes altered in frequency, predominantly between the ages of 15-17 years.

Which outcomes should be used in future bronchiolitis trials? Developing a bronchiolitis core outcome set using a systematic review, Delphi survey and a consensus workshop.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future clinical trials in bronchiolitis. We wanted to find out which outcomes are important to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to parents and which outcomes should be prioritised for use in future clinical trials. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study used a systematic review, workshops and interviews, a Delphi survey and a final consensus workshop. RESULTS: Thirteen parents and 45 HCPs took part in 5 workshops; 15 other parents were also separately interviewed. Fifty-six items were identified from the systematic review, workshops and interviews. Rounds one and two of the Delphi survey involved 299 and 194 participants, respectively. Sixteen outcomes met the criteria for inclusion within the COS. The consensus meeting was attended by 10 participants, with representation from all three stakeholder groups. Nine outcomes were added, totalling 25 outcomes to be included in the COS. CONCLUSION: We have developed the first parent and HCP consensus on a COS for bronchiolitis in a hospital setting. The use of this COS will ensure outcomes in future bronchiolitis trials are important and relevant, and will enable the trial results to be compared and combined. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN75766048.

International variation in evidence-based emergency department management of bronchiolitis: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the international variation in the use of evidence-based management (EBM) in bronchiolitis. We hypothesised that management consistent with full-EBM practices is associated with the research network of care, adjusted for patient-level characteristics. Secondary objectives were to determine the association between full-EBM and (1) hospitalisation and (2) emergency department (ED) revisits resulting in hospitalisation within 21 days. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 38 paediatric EDs belonging to the Paediatric Emergency Research Network in Canada, USA, Australia/New Zealand UK/Ireland and Spain/Portugal. PATIENTS: Otherwise healthy infants 2-11 months old diagnosed with bronchiolitis between 1 January 2013 and 31 December, 2013. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was management consistent with full-EBM, that is, no bronchodilators/corticosteroids/antibiotics, no chest radiography or laboratory testing. Secondary outcomes included hospitalisations during the index and subsequent ED visits. RESULTS: 1137/2356 (48.3%) infants received full-EBM (ranging from 13.2% in Spain/Portugal to 72.3% in UK/Ireland). Compared with the UK/Ireland, the adjusted ORs (aOR) of full-EBM receipt were lower in Spain/Portugal (aOR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.29), Canada (aOR 0.13 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.31) and USA (aOR 0.16 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.35). EBM was less likely in infants with dehydration (aOR 0.49 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.71)), chest retractions (aOR 0.69 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.91)) and nasal flaring (aOR 0.69 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.92)). EBM was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation at the index visit (aOR 0.77 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.98)) but not at revisits (aOR 1.17 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.85)). CONCLUSIONS: Infants with bronchiolitis frequently do not receive full-EBM ED management, particularly those outside of the UK/Ireland. Furthermore, there is marked variation in full-EBM between paediatric emergency networks, and full-EBM delivery is associated with lower likelihood of hospitalisation. Given the global bronchiolitis burden, international ED-focused deimplementation of non-indicated interventions to enhance EBM is needed.

Psychological distress and trauma in doctors providing frontline care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a prospective longitudinal survey cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctors is a significant concern. Due to the emergence of multiple pandemic waves, longitudinal data on the impact of COVID-19 are vital to ensure an adequate psychological care response. The primary aim was to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma in frontline doctors during the acceleration, peak and deceleration of the COVID-19 first wave. Personal and professional factors associated with psychological distress are also reported. DESIGN: A prospective online three-part longitudinal survey. SETTING: Acute hospitals in the UK and Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Frontline doctors working in emergency medicine, anaesthetics and intensive care medicine during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychological distress and trauma measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Impact of Events-Revised. RESULTS: The initial acceleration survey distributed across networks generated a sample of 5440 doctors. Peak and deceleration response rates from the original sample were 71.6% (n=3896) and 56.6% (n=3079), respectively. Prevalence of psychological distress was 44.7% (n=1334) during the acceleration, 36.9% (n=1098) at peak and 31.5% (n=918) at the deceleration phase. The prevalence of trauma was 23.7% (n=647) at peak and 17.7% (n=484) at deceleration. The prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder was 12.6% (n=343) at peak and 10.1% (n=276) at deceleration. Worry of family infection due to clinical work was the factor most strongly associated with both distress (R2=0.06) and trauma (R2=0.10). CONCLUSION: Findings reflect a pattern of elevated distress at acceleration and peak, with some natural recovery. It is essential that policymakers seek to prevent future adverse effects through (a) provision of vital equipment to mitigate physical and psychological harm, (b) increased awareness and recognition of signs of psychological distress and (c) the development of clear pathways to effective psychological care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Studies based on molecular testing of oral/nasal swabs underestimate SARS-CoV-2 infection due to issues with test sensitivity, test timing and selection bias. The objective of this study was to report the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, consistent with previous infection. DESIGN: This multicentre observational cohort study, conducted between 16 April to 3 July 2020 at 5 UK sites, recruited children of healthcare workers, aged 2-15 years. Participants provided blood samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and data were gathered regarding unwell contacts and symptoms. RESULTS: 1007 participants were enrolled, and 992 were included in the final analysis. The median age of participants was 10·1 years. There were 68 (6.9%) participants with positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests indicative of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of these, 34/68 (50%) reported no symptoms prior to testing. The presence of antibodies and the mean antibody titre was not influenced by age. Following multivariable analysis four independent variables were identified as significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity: known infected household contact OR=10.9 (95% CI 6.1 to 19.6); fatigue OR=16.8 (95% CI 5.5 to 51.9); gastrointestinal symptoms OR=6.6 (95% CI 3.0 to 13.8); and changes in sense of smell or taste OR=10.0 (95% CI 2.4 to 11.4). DISCUSSION: Children demonstrated similar antibody titres in response to SARS-CoV-2 irrespective of age. Fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms and changes in sense of smell or taste were the symptoms most strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0434740.

Need for recovery amongst emergency physicians in the UK and Ireland: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the need for recovery (NFR) among emergency physicians and to identify demographic and occupational characteristics associated with higher NFR scores. DESIGN: Cross-sectional electronic survey. SETTING: Emergency departments (EDs) (n=112) in the UK and Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Emergency physicians, defined as any registered physician working principally within the ED, responding between June and July 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: NFR Scale, an 11-item self-administered questionnaire that assesses how work demands affect intershift recovery. RESULTS: The median NFR Score for all 4247 eligible, consented participants with a valid NFR Score was 70.0 (95% CI: 65.5 to 74.5), with an IQR of 45.5-90.0. A linear regression model indicated statistically significant associations between gender, health conditions, type of ED, clinical grade, access to annual and study leave, and time spent working out-of-hours. Groups including male physicians, consultants, general practitioners (GPs) within the ED, those working in paediatric EDs and those with no long-term health condition or disability had a lower NFR Score. After adjusting for these characteristics, the NFR Score increased by 3.7 (95% CI: 0.3 to 7.1) and 6.43 (95% CI: 2.0 to 10.8) for those with difficulty accessing annual and study leave, respectively. Increased percentage of out-of-hours work increased NFR Score almost linearly: 26%-50% out-of-hours work=5.7 (95% CI: 3.1 to 8.4); 51%-75% out-of-hours work=10.3 (95% CI: 7.6 to 13.0); 76%-100% out-of-hours work=14.5 (95% CI: 11.0 to 17.9). CONCLUSION: Higher NFR scores were observed among emergency physicians than reported in any other profession or population to date. While out-of-hours working is unavoidable, the linear relationship observed suggests that any reduction may result in NFR improvement. Evidence-based strategies to improve well-being such as proportional out-of-hours working and improved access to annual and study leave should be carefully considered and implemented where feasible.

COVID-19 emergency response assessment study: a prospective longitudinal survey of frontline doctors in the UK and Ireland: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is putting an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems globally. The psychological impact on frontline doctors of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic is currently unknown. This longitudinal professional survey aims to understand the evolving and cumulative effects of working during the COVID-19 outbreak on the psychological well-being of doctors working in emergency departments (ED), intensive care units (ICU) and anaesthetics during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a longitudinal questionnaire-based study with three predefined time points spanning the acceleration, peak and deceleration phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.The primary outcomes are psychological distress and post-trauma stress as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). Data related to personal and professional characteristics will also be collected. Questionnaires will be administered prospectively to all doctors working in ED, ICU and anaesthetics in the UK and Ireland via existing research networks during the sampling period. Data from the questionnaires will be analysed to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma, and the nature of the relationship between personal and professional characteristics and the primary outcomes. Data will be described, analysed and disseminated at each time point; however, the primary endpoint will be psychological distress and trauma at the final time point. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Bath, UK (ref: 4421), and Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Ethics Committee. Regulatory approval from the Health Regulation Authority (UK), Health and Care Research Wales (IRAS: 281944).This study is limited by the fact that it focuses on doctors only and is survey based without further qualitative interviews of participants. It is expected this study will provide clear evidence of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on doctors and will allow present and future planning to mitigate against any psychological impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children of United Kingdom healthcare workers: a prospective multicentre cohort study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has been responsible for a worldwide pandemic. Children typically have very mild, or no, symptoms of infection. This makes estimations of seroprevalence in children difficult. Research is therefore required to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children. The primary objective of this study is to report the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and/or IgG antibodies in healthy children at baseline, 2 months and 6 months. This is the only longitudinal UK study of seroprevalence in an exclusively paediatric population. Determining the changing seroprevalence is of vital public health importance and can help inform decisions around the lifting of paediatric specific social distancing measures such as school closures and the cancellation of routine paediatric hospital services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 1000 healthy children of healthcare workers aged between 2 and 15 years will be recruited from five UK sites (Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow, London and Manchester). The children will undergo phlebotomy at baseline, 2 months and 6 months to measure IgM and/or IgG positivity to SARS-CoV-2. A sample size of 675 patients is required to detect a 5% change in seroprevalence at each time point assuming an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2. Adjusted probabilities for the presence of IgG and/or IgM antibodies and of SARS-CoV-2 infection will be reported using logistic regression models where appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the London - Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (REC Reference-20/HRA/1731) and the Belfast Health & Social Care Trust Research Governance (Reference 19147TW-SW). Results of this study will be made available as preprints and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0434740; Results.

Parents' prioritised outcomes for trials investigating treatments for paediatric severe infection: a qualitative synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify parents' prioritised outcomes by combining qualitative findings from two trial feasibility studies of interventions for paediatric suspected severe infection. DESIGN: Qualitative synthesis combining parent interview data from the Fluids in Shock (FiSh) and Fever feasibility studies. Parents had experience of their child being admitted to a UK emergency department or intensive care unit with a suspected infection. PARTICIPANTS: n=: 85 parents. FiSh study: n=41 parents, 37 mothers, 4 fathers, 7 were bereaved. Fever study: n=44 parents, 33 mothers, 11 fathers, 7 were bereaved. RESULTS: In addition to survival, parents prioritised short-term outcomes including: organ and physiological functioning (eg, heart rate, breathing rate and temperature); their child looking and/or behaving more like their normal self; and length of time on treatments or mechanical support. Longer term prioritised outcomes included effects of illness on child health and development. We found that parents' prioritisation of outcomes was influenced by their experience of their child's illness, survival and the point at which they are asked about outcomes of importance in the course of their child's illness. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide insight into parent prioritised outcomes to inform the design of future trials investigating treatments for paediatric suspected or proven severe infection as well as core outcome set development work.