Children's Nomenclatural Adventurism and Medical Evaluation study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to determine whether there is an association between a child's first name and the likelihood of inpatient admission following presentation to a paediatric emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a retrospective review of electronic records held in the ED of an urban tertiary paediatric hospital. Data were obtained for all presentations up to the age of 16 years for a single month (n= 4260), each being allocated to 1 of the 10 predetermined first name categories. RESULTS: A statistically significant increased risk for hospital admission was found for the following first name categories: popular culture (relative risk (RR) = 1.91, P= 0.000, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.60-2.28), apparently unique (RR = 1.52, P= 0.000, 95% CI = 1.23-1.87), Old Testament (RR = 1.39, P= 0.001, 95% CI = 1.14-1.69) and surname as first name (RR = 1.36, P= 0.015, 95% CI = 1.07-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm the impression that children with certain categories of first names have an increased likelihood of admission to hospital after presenting to the ED. We speculate that our findings, which are in concordance with those from educational and psychological literature, may reflect socio-economic status and/or a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. Further research may make it possible to assign names an RR rating (e.g. for hospital admission in the first 16 years of life), thus providing parents with another factor to consider when choosing names for their children. More studies are of course needed.

Comparison of two benzodiazepines used for sedation of children undergoing suturing of a laceration in an emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine if oral diazepam (POD) is as effective in sedating children less than 6 years of age for laceration repair as oral midazolam (POM) or intranasal midazolam (INM); and (2) To determine if patients stayed longer in the department after sedation when given POD for sedation. DESIGN/METHODS: Block-randomized, single-blind trial. SETTING: Tertiary pediatric emergency department. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 1 to 5 years old with a laceration requiring sutures were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: All patients had topical anesthetic applied to the wound and were randomly assigned to POD 0.5 mg/kg, POM 1.0 mg/kg, or INM 0.4 mg/kg for sedation. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients were enrolled, 42 POD, 45 POM, and 42 INM. Each group was similar at baseline for age, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, previous laceration or sedation, anxiety score, and site of laceration. POM and POD were better tolerated than INM (P = 0.05 and 0.034), respectively. Time to sedation was significantly longer in POD (31.0 +/- 9 min) than INM (26.1 +/- 9 min) (P = 0.011) but there was no significant difference when comparing the other groups. However, this difference was not clinically significant. POD was significantly worse at sedating children compared with POM and INM on all four scores (ie, doctor, nurse, parent, and investigator), but INM and POM were equivalent. Total time in the department was no different between POM and INM or POM and POD, but was significantly different for POD (53.9 +/- 16 min) and INM (48 +/- 12 min); however, this difference was minimal. More patients were said to be drowsy at home in the POM group (51%) than the POD group (32%). CONCLUSIONS: The oral route of delivery of POM and POD was better tolerated than INM. POM and INM were more effective at sedation than POD, but there was no clinical difference between any groups for time to sedation or time to discharge. More patients in the POM group had side effects after leaving the department. POD may be an alternative to POM, but a higher dose may be required, possibly with longer recovery times.