How safe are paediatric emergency departments? A national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high number of children treated in emergency departments, patient safety risks in this setting are not well quantified. Our objective was to estimate the risk and type of adverse events, as well as their preventability and severity, for children treated in a paediatric emergency department. METHODS: Our prospective, multicentre cohort study enrolled children presenting for care during one of 168 8-hour study shifts across nine paediatric emergency departments. Our primary outcome was an adverse event within 21 days of enrolment which was related to care provided at the enrolment visit. We identified 'flagged outcomes' (such as hospital visits, worsening symptoms) through structured telephone interviews with patients and families over the 21 days following enrolment. We screened admitted patients' health records with a validated trigger tool. For patients with flags or triggers, three reviewers independently determined whether an adverse event occurred. RESULTS: We enrolled 6376 children; 6015 (94%) had follow-up data. Enrolled children had a median age of 4.3 years (IQR 1.6-9.8 years). One hundred and seventy-nine children (3.0%, 95% CI 2.6% to 3.5%) had at least one adverse event. There were 187 adverse events in total; 143 (76.5%, 95% CI 68.9% to 82.7%) were deemed preventable. Management (n=98, 52.4%) and diagnostic issues (n=36, 19.3%) were the most common types of adverse events. Seventy-nine (42.2%) events resulted in a return emergency department visit; 24 (12.8%) resulted in hospital admission; and 3 (1.6%) resulted in transfer to a critical care unit. CONCLUSION: In this large-scale study, 1 in 33 children treated in a paediatric emergency department experienced an adverse event related to the care they received there. The majority of events were preventable; most were related to management and diagnostic issues. Specific patient populations were at higher risk of adverse events. We identify opportunities for improvement in care.

Short-Course Antimicrobial Therapy for Pediatric Community-Acquired Pneumonia: The SAFER Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common occurrence in childhood; consequently, evidence-based recommendations for its treatment are required. Objective: To determine whether 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin for CAP was associated with noninferior rates of clinical cure compared with 10 days of high-dose amoxicillin. Design, Setting, and Participants: The SAFER (Short-Course Antimicrobial Therapy for Pediatric Respiratory Infections) study was a 2-center, parallel-group, noninferiority randomized clinical trial consisting of a single-center pilot study from December 1, 2012, to March 31, 2014, and the follow-up main study from August 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019 at the emergency departments of McMaster Children's Hospital and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Research staff, participants, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. Eligible children were aged 6 months to 10 years and had fever within 48 hours, respiratory symptoms, chest radiography findings consistent with pneumonia as per the emergency department physician, and a primary diagnosis of pneumonia. Children were excluded if they required hospitalization, had comorbidities that would predispose them to severe disease and/or pneumonia of unusual origin, or had previous ß-lactam antibiotic therapy. Data were analyzed from March 1 to July 8, 2020. Interventions: Five days of high-dose amoxicillin therapy followed by 5 days of placebo (intervention group) vs 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin followed by a different formulation of 5 days of high-dose amoxicillin (control group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical cure at 14 to 21 days. Results: Among the 281 participants, the median age was 2.6 (interquartile range, 1.6-4.9) years (160 boys [57.7%] of 279 with sex listed). Clinical cure was observed in 101 of 114 children (88.6%) in the intervention group and in 99 of 109 (90.8%) in the control group in per-protocol analysis (risk difference, -0.016; 97.5% confidence limit, -0.087). Clinical cure at 14 to 21 days was observed in 108 of 126 (85.7%) in the intervention group and in 106 of 126 (84.1%) in the control group in the intention-to-treat analysis (risk difference, 0.023; 97.5% confidence limit, -0.061). Conclusions and Relevance: Short-course antibiotic therapy appeared to be comparable to standard care for the treatment of previously healthy children with CAP not requiring hospitalization. Clinical practice guidelines should consider recommending 5 days of amoxicillin for pediatric pneumonia management in accordance with antimicrobial stewardship principles. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02380352.

Management of pediatric allergic reaction: Practice patterns of Canadian pediatric emergency physicians.

OBJECTIVES: Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that can be life-threatening. The literature indicates that the incidence of anaphylaxis is increasing and that there are deficiencies in both recognition and management. We aimed to examine the magnitude of these gaps in Canadian pediatric emergency medicine (PEM). METHODS: We conducted a self-administered survey of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) physician database. The survey tool was developed through a literature review to identify recurring themes of gaps in anaphylaxis diagnosis and management. The final tool contained four scenarios; three scenarios featured each of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) anaphylaxis criteria, separately, and a fourth case of non-anaphylactic allergy. Multiple-choice questions associated with each scenario addressed diagnosis, management, and disposition. Additional questions focused on epinephrine prescribing, observation durations, and respondent demographics. RESULTS: Of the 214 members invited to participate in the survey, 152 (71%) responded. Anaphylaxis was accurately recognized 93%, 82%, and 99% of the time for the NIAID criteria one through three, respectively. When anaphylaxis was recognized, epinephrine was prescribed for each case 96%, 95%, and 72% of the time, respectively. Of all respondents, 115 (76%) accurately diagnosed all three cases of anaphylaxis and 82 (54%) treated anaphylaxis with epinephrine each time it was indicated. CONCLUSION: Most respondents recognized cases of anaphylaxis; however, a substantial number demonstrated gaps in management that may adversely impact this vulnerable population. The recognition of anaphylaxis without urticaria or pulmonary findings and treatment of anaphylaxis with epinephrine, where indicated, were the main gaps identified.