Time to change the reference ranges of children's physiological observations in emergency care? A prospective study.

AIM: High heart and respiratory rates are key indicators in many published guidelines to identify and treat serious bacterial infection and sepsis in children, but the credibility of evidence underpinning what is considered abnormal is questionable. This study established the distribution of heart and respiratory rates of children using a large data set to inform debate on what the 'normal' range of these should look like. The primary aim was to compare the distribution of heart and respiratory rates measured in children recruited from non-tertiary emergency care settings with those published by Advanced Paediatric Life Support (APLS). The secondary aim was to compare the distribution of this study's data set to other national guidance on what constitutes a severe (high-risk) measurement and previously published data sets. METHOD: Prospective study using anonymised patient data, extracted from electronic patient records of children and young people 0-16 years, recruited from three Emergency Departments and one Urgent Care Centre in Northwest England, UK. RESULTS: Heart and respiratory rates, including the reporting of values at certain centiles and comparisons of averages. Distribution of heart and respiratory rate were consistently higher than those used by the APLS guidance, resulting in a large proportion exceeding the 'severe' cut-offs proposed. This varied greatly by age. CONCLUSIONS: This study's data set suggests normal heart rate ranges proposed by the APLS and others is too low and therefore 'abnormal' measurements encompass too large a proportion. The respiratory rate of this data set was more consistent with the guidelines and other published data sets.

Defining significant childhood illness and injury in the Emergency Department: a consensus of UK and Ireland expert opinion.

BACKGROUND: Clarifying whether paediatric early warning scores (PEWS) accurately predict significant illness is a research priority for UK and Ireland paediatric emergency medicine (EM). However, a standardised list of significant conditions to benchmark these scores does not exist. OBJECTIVES: To establish standardised significant illness endpoints for use in determining the performance accuracy of PEWS and safety systems in emergency departments (ED), using a consensus of expert opinion in the UK and Ireland. DESIGN: Between July 2017 and February 2018, three online Delphi rounds established a consensus on 'significant' clinical conditions, derived from a list of common childhood illness/injury ED presentations. Conditions warranting acute hospital admission in the opinion of the respondent were defined as 'significant', using a 5-point Likert scale. The consensus was a priori ≥80% (positive or negative). 258 clinical conditions were tested. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGS: Eligible participants were consultants in acute or EM paediatrics, or adult EM, accessed via 53 PERUKI (Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland)'s research collaborative sites, and 27 GAPRUKI (General and Adolescent Paediatric Research in the UK and Ireland)'s sites, 17 of which overlap with PERUKI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To create a list of conditions regarded as 'significant'with ≥80% expert consensus. RESULTS: 43 (68%) of 63 PERUKI and GAPRUKI sites responded; 295 experts were invited to participate. Participants in rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 223 (76%), 177 (60%) and 148 (50%), respectively; 154 conditions reached positive consensus as 'significant'; 1 condition reached a negative consensus (uncomplicated Henoch-Schönlein purpura); and 37 conditions achieved non-consensus. CONCLUSIONS: A list of significant childhood conditions has been created using UK and Irish expert consensus, for research purposes, for the first time. This will be used as the benchmark endpoint list for future research into PEWS/safety systems performance in EDs.

Diagnostic accuracy of PAT-POPS and ManChEWS for admissions of children from the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The Pennine Acute Trust (PAT) Paediatric Observation Priority Score (PAT-POPS) is a specific emergency department (ED) physiological and observational aggregate scoring system, with scores of 0-18. A higher score indicates greater likelihood of admission. The Manchester Children's Early Warning System (ManChEWS) assesses six physiological observations to create a trigger score, classified as Green, Amber or Red. METHODS: Prospectively collected data were used to calculate PAT-POPS and ManChEWS on 2068 patients aged under 16 years (mean 5.6 years, SD 4.6) presenting over 1 month to a UK District General Hospital Paediatric ED. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) comparison, using STATA V.13, was used to investigate the ability of ManChEWS and PAT-POPS to predict admission to hospital within 72 h of presentation to the ED. RESULTS: Comparison of the area under the ROC curve indicates that the ManChEWS ROC is 0.67 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.70) and the PAT-POPS ROC is 0.72 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.75). The difference is statistically significant. At a PAT-POPS cut-off of ≥2, 80% of patients had their admission risk correctly classified (positive likelihood ratio 3.40, 95% CI 2.90 to 3.98) whereas for ManChEWS with a cut off of ≥Amber only 71% of patients were correctly classified (positive likelihood ratio 2.18, 95% CI 1.94 to 2.45). CONCLUSIONS: PAT-POPS is a more accurate predictor of admission risk than ManChEWS. Replacing ManChEWS with PAT-POPS would appear to be clinically appropriate in a paediatric ED. This needs validation in a multicentre study.

Exploring Perceptions of Parents on the Use of Emergency Department On-site Primary Care Services for the Treatment of Children With Non-urgent Conditions.

This study was conducted to understand the reasons parents of children with minor conditions attend the Children's Emergency Department (ED), and their views about onsite pediatric same day care (SDC) service as an alternative treatment center. The study was a cross-sectional survey of parents attending an inner-city, district general hospital children's ED, with children aged under 16 years old who were allocated to low triage categories. A convenience sample of 58 parents of 58 children were recruited. All the 58 responses were analyzed. Incomplete questionnaires were not excluded. 47% of attendances were because of minor injury. Most presentations were within 24 hours of the injury or illness. 72% of parents were employed. 91% were registered with a General Practitioner (GP). 29% contacted a GP before the ED visit. The majority of participants who contacted a GP were referred to the ED; others were advised to wait to see if the child's condition improved and to attend the ED if there were any concerns or the child deteriorated in any way. About 50% of those that did not contact GP said the GP surgery was closed and 8% felt the GP could not help. 90% of parents perceived their child's condition as urgent requiring immediate treatment. About 33% of parents said they would be happy for their children to be treated at an onsite SDC center. The study showed limited access to GP services in the community and dissatisfaction with community services and perceived urgency of treatment prompted parents of children with minor conditions to attend the ED. This could mean significant ED attendance by children with minor conditions. The majority of the parents in the study would welcome an onsite pediatric SDC if appropriate to meet their children's care needs. Establishing an onsite SDC may help relieve the ED pressures to attend to more clinically urgent and emergency cases.