Search

Objective: The aims of this study were to describe point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use by recent pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellowship graduates and identify associations between frequency and breadth of POCUS use with variations in POCUS training and current clinical practice environment., Methods: This was a cross-sectional online survey of recent PEM fellowship graduates. Chi-square and nonparametric tests were used to compare POCUS use among physicians with varying types of POCUS training and varying clinical practice environments., Results: Eighty-two percent of 143 respondents reported using POCUS in their past 10 shifts. There was no association between the methods of POCUS education and frequency or breadth of POCUS use. Pediatric emergency medicine fellowship graduates with additional POCUS fellowship training performed more scans and used more applications than those who completed a pediatrics or medicine-pediatrics residency before PEM fellowship only [median 15 (9, 20) vs 2 (1, 5) (P < 0.01) and median 11 (6.5, 13) vs 2 (1, 3) (P < 0.01), respectively]. Participants who worked in academic emergency departments performed more ultrasounds than those who did not [3.5 (1, 8) vs 1 (0, 2), P < 0.01] and used a greater breadth of applications [3 (1, 5) vs 1 (0, 3), P < 0.01]. Physicians who billed for POCUS studies were more likely to use POCUS (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-7.3) with greater frequency [5 (2.3, 10) vs 2 (0.8, 5), P < 0.01] and use a broader range of applications [3 (2,6) vs 2 (0.8, 3.3), P < 0.01]., Conclusion: Most respondents report recent POCUS use in practice. Point-of-care ultrasound fellowship training, working in an academic emergency department, and having the ability to bill were associated with increased POCUS use., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aimed to assess the agreement between patients presenting to the pediatric emergency department (ED) with acute pain and their caregivers when using the Wong-Baker FACES (WBF) and Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R)., Methods: This was a prospective, observational study examining patients 3 to 7.5 years old presenting to a pediatric ED with acute pain. Participants completed the WBF and FPS-R twice during their ED evaluation. Caregivers rated their child's pain using both the WBF and FPS-R at the same time points. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated between caregiver and child reports at each time point, and Bland-Altman plots were created., Results: Forty-six subjects were enrolled over 5 months. Mean age was 5.5 ± 1.2 years. Average initial child pain scores were 6.6 ± 2.8 (WBF) and 6.1 ± 3.3 (FPS-R), and repeat scores were 3.3 ± 3.4 (WBF) and 3.1 ± 3.3 (FPS-R). Average initial caregiver pain scores were 6.3 ± 2.4 (WBF) and 6.2 ± 2.3 (FPS-R), and repeat scores were 3.4 ± 2.0 (WBF) and 3.4 ± 2.1 (FPS-R). On initial assessment, ICCs between children and caregivers using the FPS-R and WBF were 0.33 and 0.22, respectively. On repeat assessment, the ICCs were 0.31 for FPS-R and 0.26 for WBF. Bland-Altman plots showed poor agreement but no systematic bias., Conclusion: There was poor agreement between caregivers and children when using the WBF and FPS-R for assessment of acute pain in the ED. Caregiver report should not be used as a substitute for self-report of pain if possible., (Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) accounts for most trauma in children. Although the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) is considered standard of care in the evaluation of adults with traumatic injuries, there is limited evidence to support its use as an isolated evaluation tool for intra-abdominal injury as a result of BAT in children. Although a positive FAST examination could obviate the need for a computed tomography scan before OR evaluation in a hemodynamically unstable patient, a negative FAST examination cannot exclude intra-abdominal injury as a result of BAT in isolation. In this article, we review the evaluation of BAT in children, describe the evaluation for free intraperitoneal fluid and pericardial fluid using the FAST examination, and discuss the limitations of the FAST examination in pediatric patients., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pediatric venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a condition increasingly encountered by emergency medicine physicians. Unfortunately, despite increased incidence, the diagnosis of pediatric VTE relies on a high index of suspicion from clinicians. Delays in diagnosis and initiation of treatment can lead to poor outcomes in children, including an increased risk of mortality from pulmonary embolism, increased risk of VTE recurrence, and the development of the post-thrombotic syndrome. The majority of pediatric VTE events are associated with the presence of at least one underlying prothrombotic risk. Timely recognition of these risk factors in the emergency department (ED) setting is paramount for a prompt diagnosis and treatment initiation. Compared with children with hospital-acquired VTE, children presenting to the ED with new onset VTE tend to be older (>11 years of age), have a lower incidence of co-morbidities, and present more frequently with a deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremity. Currently, there are no validated pediatric-specific VTE clinical pretest probability tools that reliably assist with the accurate and timely diagnosis of pediatric VTE. Compression ultrasound with Doppler is the most common imaging modality used for VTE diagnosis, and low molecular weight heparins are the most common anticoagulants initiated in children presenting with VTE in the ED. Special consideration should be given to patients who present to the ED already on anticoagulation therapy who may require acute management for clinically-significant bleeding or change in antithrombotic therapy approach for progression/recurrence of VTE., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The primary objective was to survey pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) leaders and fellows regarding point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) training in PEM fellowship programs, including teaching methods, training requirements, and applications taught. Secondary objectives were to compare fellows' and program leaders' perceptions of fellow POCUS competency and training barriers., Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey of U.S. PEM fellows and fellowship program leaders of the 78 fellowship programs using two online group-specific surveys exploring five domains: program demographics; training strategies and requirements; perceived competency; barriers, strengths, and weaknesses of POCUS training; and POCUS satisfaction., Results: Eighty-three percent (65/78) of programs and 53% (298/558) of fellows responded. All participating PEM fellowship programs included POCUS training in their curriculum. Among the 65 programs, 97% of programs and 92% of programs utilized didactics and supervised scanning shifts as educational techniques, respectively. Sixty percent of programs integrated numerical benchmarks and 49% of programs incorporated real-time, hands-on demonstration as training requirements. Of the 19 POCUS applications deemed in the literature as core requirements for fellows, at least 75% of the 298 fellows reported training in 13 of those applications. Although less than half of fellows endorsed competency for identifying intussusception, ultrasound-guided pericardiocentesis, and transvaginal pregnancy evaluation, a higher proportion of leaders reported fellows as competent for these applications (40% vs. 68%, p ≤ 0.001; 21% vs. 39%, p = 0.003; and 21% vs. 43%, p ≤ 0.001). Forty-six percent of fellows endorsed a lack of PEM POCUS evidence as a training barrier compared to 31% of leaders (p = 0.02), and 39% of leaders endorsed a lack of local financial support as a training barrier compared to 23% of fellows (p = 0.01)., Conclusions: Although most PEM fellowship programs provide POCUS training, there is variation in content and requirements. Training does conform to many of the expert recommended guidelines; however, there are some discrepancies and perceived barriers to POCUS training remain., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts to disclose., (© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)