Search

Background/Objective Pediatric residents must demonstrate competence prior to graduation in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) required procedures. Recent literature shows general pediatricians (GPeds) infrequently perform these procedures yet believe them important to learn. The purpose of this study was to determine why GPeds believe learning procedures was important, what barriers prevent them from developing and maintaining procedural skills, and what procedures they believe should be included in training. Methods Fifty-one GPeds from the American Board of Pediatrics General Examination Committee and the central Ohio region participated in 30-minute semistructured recorded phone interviews that probed their use of procedures across training and current practice. Participants represented urban, suburban, and rural geographic regions and practiced in a variety of settings. We conducted a thematic analysis of transcribed interviews. Results GPeds believed currently required ACGME procedures were crucial to learn for 5 reasons: 1) adaptation to change in practice type or location, 2) emergency preparedness, 3) counseling patients and families, 4) distance from a tertiary care center and specialists, and 5) professional identity as a pediatrician. Numerous barriers, particularly never learning the procedures, prevented GPeds from performing procedures in practice. Recommended procedures to be taught included high- (eg, circumcision), and low-risk (eg, cerumen removal, nasopharyngeal swabs, umbilical cauterization) skills. Conclusions GPeds believed procedural training was important, however may never have learned certain procedures. These findings suggest that teaching methods should be adapted or customized procedural education should be implemented to ensure relevancy of skills learned for clinical practice.

To compare hospital costs and resource utilization for pediatric asthma admissions based on the hospitals' availability of continuous albuterol aerosolization administration (CAA) in non-intensive care unit (ICU) settings.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children ages 2-17 years admitted in 2019 with a principal diagnosis of asthma using the Pediatric Health Information System. Hospitals and hospitalizations were categorized based on location of CAA administration, ICU-only versus general inpatient floors. Hospitals preforming CAA in an intermediate care unit were excluded. We calculated total cost, standardized unit costs and rates of interventions. Groups were compared using Chi-Square, t-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test as indicated. A log linear mixed model was created to evaluate potential confounders.Twenty-one hospitals (7084 hospitalizations) allowed CAA on the floor.Twenty-four hospitals (6100 hospitalizations) allowed CAA in the ICU-only. Median total cost was $4639 (Interquartile Range (IQR) $3060-$7512) for the floor group and $5478 (IQR $3444-$8539) for the ICU-only group (There was cost savings and decreased resource utilization for hospitals that performed CAA on the floor. Further studies exploring variations in asthma management are warranted.

International Classification of Diseases (ICD) billing codes are not well-suited to estimate physical abuse prevalence among hospitalized patients and may be even less accurate in emergency departments (EDs). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recently published a child abuse and neglect syndromic surveillance definition to more accurately examine national abuse trends among ED visits.To retrospectively apply the CDC syndromic definition to a population of physically abused children and determine its sensitivity for abuse in an ED and at hospital discharge.All physically abused children5 years seen in the ED and evaluated by the child protection team from 2016 to 2020 at a large Midwestern children's hospital.Retrospective cross-sectional study utilizing the hospital's child protection team administrative database, the Pediatric Health Information System and the electronic health record to identify the study sample, chief complaint, and abuse-specific codes assigned in the ED and at hospital discharge. Abuse-specific codes were defined as all ICD-10-CM and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) codes included in the CDC syndromic definition, which was applied to the sample and its sensitivity determined.Among the 550 abused patients identified, most were male (58.4 %), white (65.1 %),2 years old (80.4 %), and had public insurance (81.6 %). When applying the CDC syndromic definition, only 11.6 % were identified as abused in the ED and 65.3 % were identified at hospital discharge.The CDC syndrome surveillance definition lacks sensitivity in identifying abuse in the ED or at hospital discharge.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted pediatric residency programs to adjust the delivery of educational curricula and to update content relevant to the pandemic. Objective In this descriptive paper, we present how we rapidly developed and implemented a COVID-19 pandemic elective for pediatric residents. Methods This curriculum was established at a single tertiary care children's hospital in June 2020. We used the ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) framework to develop a two-week elective (30 hours) consisting of six flexibly scheduled modules. We administered post-elective surveys and exit interviews to solicit feedback to improve the elective and obtain effectiveness of our educational interventions. Results We developed an asynchronous online COVID-19 Elective for Pediatric Residents. The curriculum modules focus on pathophysiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the disaster management ecosystem, simulation of clinical care, mental health ramifications, and public health consequences. We also include six in-situ experiences (visits to a drive-through COVID-19 testing site, testing laboratory and local public health department, a simulation of a critically ill child, and meetings with emergency managers and social workers) to solidify learning and allow for further reflection. To date, eight participants have taken the elective. All participants strongly agreed on a five-point Likert item survey that the elective enhanced their knowledge in current evidence-based literature for COVID-19, disaster preparedness, hospital response, management of the critically ill child, and mental and public health ramifications. All participants agreed this curriculum was relevant to and will change their practice. Conclusions We demonstrate how a COVID-19 elective for pediatric residents could be quickly developed and implemented. The pilot results show that pediatric trainees value asynchronous learning, supplemented by relevant in-situ experiences. Moreover, these results suggest that this curriculum provides needed disaster response and resiliency education for pediatric residents.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires General Pediatricians (GPeds) to learn thirteen procedures during training. However, GPeds infrequently perform these procedures in practice. We sought to determine:1) how GPeds learned procedures, 2) if GPeds self-reported achieving competence in the required ACGME procedures during training, and 3) if GPeds maintained these skills into practice. We conducted this mixed methods study from 2019–2020. 51 GPeds from central Ohio and the American Board of Pediatrics General Examination Committee were recruited via email or snowball sampling and participated in semi-structured recorded phone interviews probing procedural performance during training and current practice. Participants represented varied geographic regions and clinical settings. We employed Sawyer’s ‘Learn, See, Practice, Prove, Do, Maintain’ mastery learning pedagogical framework as a lens for thematic analysis. Participants did not demonstrate competence in all ACGME required procedures during training, nor sustain procedural skills in practice. Most participants learned procedures through a ‘see one, do one’ apprenticeship model. GPeds reported never being formally assessed on procedural competence during residency. All GPeds referred out at least one procedure. GPeds also believed that skill maintenance was unwarranted for procedures irrelevant to their current practice. GPeds did not sufficiently demonstrate competence in all ACGME required procedures during training, partially suggesting why they infrequently perform some procedures. Alternatively, these required procedures may not be relevant to their practice. Pediatric residency procedures education might consider using mastery learning for practice-specific procedures and surface-level methods (learning without mastery) for other skills.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) visits for children seeking mental health care have increased. Few studies have examined national patterns and characteristics of EDs that these children present to. In data from the National Pediatric Readiness Project, it is reported that less than half of EDs are prepared to treat children. Our objective is to describe the trends in pediatric mental health visits to US EDs, with a focus on low-volume, nonmetropolitan EDs, which have been shown to be less prepared to provide pediatric emergency care. METHODS: Using 2007 to 2016 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample databases, we assessed the number of ED visits made by children (5–17 years) with a mental health disorder using descriptive statistics. ED characteristics included pediatric volume, children’s ED classification, and location. RESULTS: Pediatric ED visits have been stable; however, visits for deliberate self-harm increased 329%, and visits for all mental health disorders rose 60%. Visits for children with a substance use disorder rose 159%, whereas alcohol-related disorders fell 39%. These increased visits occurred among EDs of all pediatric volumes, regardless of children’s ED classification. Visits to low-pediatric-volume and nonmetropolitan areas rose 53% and 41%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the total number of pediatric ED visits has remained stable, visits among children with mental health disorders have risen, particularly among youth presenting for deliberate self-harm and substance abuse. The majority of these visits occur at nonchildren’s EDs in both metropolitan and nonurban settings, which have been shown to be less prepared to provide higher-level pediatric emergency care.

Background The input of youth with intellectual disabilities in health promotion and health disparities research is essential for understanding their needs and preferences. Regular physical activity (PA) is vital for health and well-being, but levels are low in youth generally, including those with intellectual disabilities. Understanding the perceptions of and barriers to PA as reported by youth with intellectual disabilities themselves is important for designing effective interventions. Materials and methods We developed a structured interview that queried youth with intellectual disabilities and typically developing youth (ages 13–21 years) about their enjoyment, preferences and perceived barriers to PA. We describe the development of this interview and present its test–retest reliability on 15 youth with intellectual disabilities and 20 typically developing youth. Results Twenty-three of 33 questions were reliable in both groups. The results suggest that youth with intellectual disabilities can reliably report activities that they do or do not enjoy, as well as their beliefs and perceived benefits of PA. Conclusions Self-reported information on the experiences, preferences, beliefs and perceptions about among youth with intellectual disabilities is key for research efforts in health promotion and health disparities.

Objective A TV in the bedroom has been associated with screen time in youth. Youth with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD) have higher rates of screen time, but associations with bedroom TVs are unknown in this population. We examined the association of having a bedroom TV with screen time among youth with ADD/ADHD. Methods Data were from the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health. Youth 6–17 years whose parent/guardian reported a physician's diagnosis of ADD/ADHD (n = 7024) were included in the analysis. Parents/guardians reported the presence of a bedroom TV and average weekday TV screen time. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models assessed the effects of a bedroom on screen time. Results Youth with ADD/ADHD engaged in screen time with an average of 149.1 min/weekday and 59% had a TV in their bedroom. Adjusting for child and family characteristics, having a TV in the bedroom was associated with 25 minute higher daily screen time (95% CI: 12.8–37.4 min/day). A bedroom TV was associated with 32% higher odds of engaging in screen time for over 2 h/day (OR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0–1.7). Conclusion Future research should explore whether removing TVs from bedrooms reduces screen time among youth with ADD/ADHD., Highlights • We examine the effects of a bedroom TV on the screen time of youth with ADD/ADHD. • We used a national sample of youth with ADD/ADHD to examine bedroom TV and screen time. • Youth with ADD/ADHD and a bedroom TV engaged in ~ 30 minute more screen time.

Background. The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among cancer patients has increased substantially during the last decade. The purpose of this investigation is to summarize CAM content of comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans in the United States, territories, and tribes. Methods. Sixty-six CCC plans, including all the states, most of the territories, and nearly all the Native American tribes were analyzed for content of CAM, and predominant thematic areas were summarized. Results. Thirty-nine plans (59.1%) included CAM content. The predominant themes identified included increased education of CAM practices (46.2%), followed by utilization of existing CAM providers (28.2%), increasing CAM research efforts (18%), encouraging patient and provider communication about CAM use (18%), establishment of CAM baseline data (10.3%), and CAM as a barrier to treatment (10.3%). Conclusion. CAM is an emerging area in cancer care. The increasing inclusion of various themes of CAM into CCC plans indicate that many US cancer coalitions are taking steps to include the education and promotion of safe and efficacious CAM therapies for cancer patients.