Substance Abuse and Rural Appalachian Pediatric Trauma in West Virginia.

Introduction: Rural Appalachia is endemic to issues such as substance abuse, poverty, and lack of community support, all of which negatively influence health outcomes. The incidence of pediatric trauma as it relates to substance abuse is of concern in the region, where the rate of positive drug screens in pediatric trauma cases is higher than national average. Methods: The West Virginia statewide pediatric trauma database was analyzed in a retrospective cohort study for the years 2009-2019. Variables of interest included injury severity (assessed using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)), drug screening results, and various measures of patient outcome. Results: The sample was divided into 2009-2016 presentations (n = 3,356) and 2017-2019 presentations (n = 1,182). Incidence of critical (AIS 5) head injuries (p = 0.007) and serious (AIS 3) neck injuries (p = 0.001) increased as time progressed. Days requiring ventilation increased from 3.1 in 2009-2016 to 6.3 in 2017-2019 (p < 0.001). Drug screens were obtained at a rate of 6.9% in 2009-2016 versus 23.3% in 2017-2019 (p < 0.001). Benzodiazepine use increased from 0.8% to 1.8% (p < 0.001), and opioid use increased from 1% to 4.9% (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The increasing severity of pediatric trauma and substance abuse in Appalachia is of significant concern. The use of respiratory drive-depressing drugs has risen, just as the severity of head and neck traumas has increased. These results emphasize the importance of targeted interventions in the rural pediatric population.

Will Protective Innovations Like the "Airway Box" Become Routine Practice After the Pandemic?: An Opinion Survey.

Background Tracheal intubation carries an elevated risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to the generation of aerosols containing high concentrations of the virus. An airway box was designed to mitigate the exposure of healthcare professionals performing intubations. Aim We evaluated usability and sustainability in the routine practice of the "airway box" as a protective device during high-risk airway procedures.  Materials and methods After institutional review board approval, clinicians were educated on using the device through simulation, intranet learning modules, and emailed resources. The airway box was made available in the emergency department, critical care units, perioperative area, and operating rooms. QR codes affixed to the box, emailed, and displayed in common areas provided easy access to complete a REDcap survey (Vanderbilt University Nashville, USA) eliciting providers' experience. Data was collected and analyzed between April 1 and July 31, 2020, on REDcap, and the results were analyzed. Results 687 emergent intubations took place. 232 were performed by anesthesiologists, 315 by emergency department providers, and 140 by critical care specialists. 39 surveys were completed, 29 from intubations in the operating room, three from the critical care units, five from interventional radiology suites, and two perioperatively. Providers found the device to be readily available, with a score of 4.51/5, and the majority of providers, 60%, found the device easy to use, rating it either a 4 or 5 out of 5. Providers acquired a mean Mallampati score of 1.75 and 1.40 mean laryngoscopic grade view. Conclusion Intubation boxes may effectively mitigate high-risk viral exposure during airway procedures. Survey responses show that devices were easy to use and did not significantly affect visualization of the airway. Similar to mask use, enclosure devices in clinical practice could become a vital part of medical protective equipment even after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic if they are effectively implemented.

Multisource feedback in professionalism for anesthesia residents.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess professionalism in anesthesiology residents, it is important to obtain evaluations from people with whom they interact on daily basis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a Multisource feedback (MSF) on resident's professional behavior and to assess the effect of faculty feedback on resident performance. DESIGN: This study was a two-group randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Residents were recruited from Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital. PATIENTS: Participants included twenty eight residents doing a two-month rotation in Pediatric Anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Multisource feedback questionnaires were developed and then validated using face and content validity. Residents were randomly assigned to a feedback group or a control group. Both groups received the MSF evaluation. Only the group assigned to feedback had a 'coaching meeting' every month creating strategies for improvement. MEASUREMENTS: MSF questionnaires were validated using a face validation and expert content validity. The effect of MSF on a professionalism questionnaire was assessed using analysis of covariance and linear mixed effects regression models. MAIN RESULTS: Observed test-retest agreement was greater than 0.90 for all items, with more than half of kappa statistics greater than 0.50. Cronbach's alpha was 0.71.The MSF increased the self-assessment score with an estimated effect of 0.21 (95% CI 0.06, 0.37), P=.015. There was no detected effect on patient family evaluation, with mean difference (CI) in change from baseline of 0.03 (-0.15, 0.21), P=.77, faculty evaluation, 0.21 (-0.02, 0.44), P=.08, or coworker evaluation 0.13 (-0.11, 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Our new multi-source feedback questionnaire to assess professionalism had good reliability and internal consistency. Using our validated questionnaire we assessed the effect of a monthly feedback to improve professionalism in anesthesia residents. While we did see improvement in anesthesiology residents' self-assessment, we did not see a similar effect on patient family, faculty or coworker evaluations.