Search

Background Early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine trials excluded pregnant women, resulting in limited data about immunogenicity and maternal–fetal antibody transfer, particularly by gestational timing of vaccination. Methods In this multicenter observational immunogenicity study, pregnant and nonpregnant women receiving COVID-19 vaccines were prospectively enrolled. Participants had sera collected before vaccination, at 14–28 days after each vaccine dose, at delivery (umbilical cord and peripheral), and from their infants at 3 and 6 months. Geometric mean titers (GMTs) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ID50 neutralizing antibody (nAb) against D614G-like viruses were compared by participant characteristics. Results Overall, 23 nonpregnant and 85 pregnant participants (trimester of first vaccine dose: 10 first, 47 second, 28 third) were enrolled. Ninety-three percent (76/82 with blood samples) of pregnant participants had detectable SARS-CoV-2 nAb after 2 vaccine doses, but GMTs (95% confidence intervals) were lower in pregnant participants than nonpregnant participants (1722 [1136–2612] vs 4419 [2012–9703]; P = .04). By 3 and 6 months, 28% and 74% of infants, respectively, of vaccinated participants had no detectable nAb to D614G-like viruses. Among the 71 pregnant participants without detectable nAb before vaccination, cord blood GMTs at delivery were 5-fold higher among participants vaccinated during the third versus first trimester, and cord blood nAb titers appeared inversely correlated with weeks since first vaccine dose (R2 = 0.06, P = .06). Conclusions Though most pregnant women develop nAb after 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, this analysis suggests that infant protection from maternal vaccination varies by gestational timing of vaccination and wanes. Additional prevention strategies such as caregiver vaccination may warrant consideration to optimize infant protection.

Background We conducted a cross-sectional study of pregnant women with acute respiratory illness during delivery hospitalizations during influenza season to describe clinical testing for respiratory viruses and infection prevention practices. Methods Women had nasal swabs tested for influenza and other respiratory viruses. Among 91 enrolled women, 22 (24%) had clinical testing for influenza. Results Based on clinical and study testing combined, 41 of 91 (45%) women had samples positive for respiratory viruses. The most common virus was influenza (17 of 91, 19%); 53% (9 of 17) of influenza virus infections were identified through study testing alone. Only 16% of women were on droplet precautions. Conclusions Peripartum respiratory infections may be underrecognized.

The aim of the study was to evaluate pregnant women's attitudes toward COVID-19 illness and vaccination and identify factors associated with vaccine acceptability.This was a cross-sectional survey among pregnant women enrolled in a prospective COVID-19 cohort study in Salt Lake City, UT, Birmingham, AL, and New York, NY, from August 9 to December 10, 2020. Women were eligible if they were 18 to 50 years old and28 weeks of gestation. Upon enrollment, women completed surveys regarding concerns about COVID-19 illness and likelihood of getting COVID-19 vaccine if one were available during pregnancy. Vaccine acceptability was defined as a response of "very likely" or "somewhat likely" on a 4-point Likert scale. Factors associated with vaccine acceptability were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Of 939 pregnant women eligible for the main cohort study, 915 (97%) consented to participate. Among these 915 women, 39% self-identified as White, 23% Black, 33% Hispanic, and 4% Other. Sixty-two percent received an influenza vaccine last season. Seventy-two percent worried about getting sick with COVID-19. If they were to get sick, 92% worried about harm to their pregnancy and 80% about harm to themselves. Only 41% reported they would get a vaccine. Of women who were unlikely to get vaccinated, the most frequently cited concern was vaccine safety for their pregnancy (82%). Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women had lower odds of accepting a vaccine compared with non-Hispanic White women (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.6 for both). Receipt of influenza vaccine during the previous season was associated with higher odds of vaccine acceptability (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5-3.0).Although most pregnant women worried about COVID-19 illness,50% were willing to get vaccinated during pregnancy. Racial and ethnic disparities in plans to accept COVID-19 vaccine highlight the need to prioritize strategies to address perceived barriers among groups at high risk for COVID-19.· Less than half of pregnant patients stated they would get a COVID-19 vaccine.. · Protecting their baby was the most common reason for acceptance and refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine.. · Patients of minority race/ethnicity and those without prior influenza vaccination were less likely to accept the COVID-19 vaccine..

Physical abuse is a significant cause of infant morbidity and mortality. Early detection in the emergency department (ED) is crucial.We describe the impact of a clinical pathway focused on early involvement of the child protection team (CPT) and social work (SW) team for infants presenting to a pediatric emergency department with an injury concerning for abuse.The pathway lists 10 injuries associated with abuse in infants and directs consultation of the CPT and SW. It was implemented at a single site on April 1, 2014. Seasonally matched data were collected 12 months before and after implementation on all children12 months of age with a qualifying injury. Demographics, CPT and SW consults, referral to Child Protective Services, diagnostic studies, and ultimate determination of abuse by the CPT were collected.Implementation of the pathway was associated with an increase in consultation of the CPT from 17% to 47% (p 0.001) and SW from 33% to 52% (p 0.001). CPT and SW consultations were obtained more frequently for those on public compared to private insurance prior to implementation but not after (CPT: odds ratio [OR] 4.32; p = 0.046; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-18.15; SW: OR 3.23, p = 0.034; 95% CI 1.09-9.74). Diagnostic testing increased in the post-pathway period. There was no difference in the detection of abusive injury or number of missed cases.These findings suggest that this clinical pathway was successful in increasing involvement of the CPT and SW teams and reducing socioeconomic disparity in the evaluation of infants with injuries concerning for abuse.

Although child physical abuse is missed more frequently in community (CEDs) vs. pediatric emergency departments (PEDs), little information exists describing how evaluations of high-risk injuries differ between these settings.To determine differences in evaluations of infants for abuse between a PED and CEDs and whether a child abuse guideline reduced these differences.Infants presenting to one PED (n = 162) and three CEDs (n = 159) with 3 injury categories: 1) Injuries for which the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends skeletal survey (SS) testing (infants5-months with an oral injury or bruising,9-months with a non-skull fracture, and 12-months with an intracranial hemorrhage); 2) an oral injury or high-risk bruising in older infants; and 3) multiple types of high-risk injuries.We assessed differences in SS testing and child protective services (CPS) reporting between the PED and CEDs before and after implementation of a child abuse guideline.The median (IQR) age was 4 months (2-7). Before guideline implementation, infants with injuries in categories 1 and 2 had an increased odds of SS testing in the PED vs. the CEDs (Category 1: aOR 2.83, 95% CI: 1.01-8.10; Category 2: aOR 10.1, CI: 1.2-88.0) and CPS reporting (Category 1: aOR 7.96, CI: 2.3-26.7; Category 2: aOR 12.0, CI: 1.4-103.5). After guideline implementation, there were no statistically significant differences in testing and reporting for any injury category.Implementation of a child abuse guideline minimized differences between a PED and CEDs in the evaluation of infants with injuries concerning for abuse.

Background Data about the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among pregnant individuals are needed to inform infection-prevention guidance and counseling for this population. Methods We prospectively followed a cohort of pregnant individuals during August 2020–March 2021 at 3 US sites. The 3 primary outcomes were incidence rates of any SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic infection, and asymptomatic infection, during pregnancy during periods of SARS-CoV-2 circulation. Participants self-collected weekly midturbinate nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction testing, completed weekly illness symptom questionnaires, and submitted additional swabs with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–like symptoms. An overall SARS-CoV-2 infection incidence rate weighted by population counts of women of reproductive age in each state was calculated. Results Among 1098 pregnant individuals followed for a mean of 10 weeks, 9% (99/1098) had SARS-CoV-2 infections during the study. Population-weighted incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were 10.0 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 5.7–14.3) person-weeks for any infection, 5.7 per 1000 (1.7–9.7) for symptomatic infections, and 3.5 per 1000 (0–7.1) for asymptomatic infections. Among 96 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infections and symptom data, the most common symptoms were nasal congestion (72%), cough (64%), headache (59%), and change in taste or smell (54%); 28% had measured or subjective fever. Median symptom duration was 10 (interquartile range, 6–16) days. Conclusions Pregnant individuals in this study had a 1% risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection per week, underscoring the importance of COVID-19 vaccination and other prevention measures during pregnancy while SARS-CoV-2 is circulating in the community.

Study objective There is a continued movement toward health data transparency, accelerated by the 21st Century CURES Act, which mandated the automatic and immediate release of clinical notes, often termed "open notes." Differences in utilization among different patient demographics and disproportionately affected populations within the emergency department (ED) are not yet known. Methods This was an observational study of 10 EDs and 3 urgent care centers across a single health system over a 13-week period from February 1, 2021 to May 2, 2021. Primary outcomes included the proportion of patients with patient portal access to open notes at the time of encounter, the proportion of patients with access who opened the clinical note, and time from clinical note signing to patient read. Results Among 98,725 patient visits, less than half (48.9%) had patient portal access, of which 13.7% read an open note. Access was less likely in patients who were under age 18 (odds ratio 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.11), older than 65 (0.82, 0.73 to 0.93), Black non-Hispanic (0.66, 0.61 to 0.73), non-English speakers, and on public insurance. Patients were less likely to read open notes if they identified as Black non-Hispanic (0.61, 0.57 to 0.66), spoke Spanish (0.70, 0.60 to 0.81), or were on public insurance. Conclusion We identified substantial differences in digital access to clinical notes as well as patient utilization of open notes in a large, diverse sample. Health transparency initiatives must address not only technology adoption broadly but also the unique barriers faced by populations experiencing disadvantage to facilitate equitable access to and awareness about digital health tools without the unintended consequence of expanding disparities.

Background Small rare earth magnets pose a known health risk to children and many cases of ingestion and aspiration with associated complications have been described. More unusual, but also seen in children, are retained foreign bodies in the oropharynx that require extraction. Case Report We present the case of a 3-year-old boy with persistent left-sided sore throat 1 h after ingestion of several 3-mm spherical rare earth magnets. No foreign bodies were visible in the oropharynx on examination; however, a chest radiograph revealed two adjacent magnets within the lower pharyngeal space, as well as four magnets linearly clumped within the small intestine. The patient was taken to the operating room, where visual inspection under general anesthesia revealed two magnets adhered to the pharyngoepiglottic folds (one on the laryngeal surface and one on the glottic surface). They were removed in full without issue, preventing aspiration. Why Should an Emergency Physician Be Aware of This? Given the recent increase in incidence of rare earth magnet ingestion, emergency providers ought to be aware of the risks and complications associated with magnetic foreign body ingestion in children and the workup and considerations involved in their removal. Providers should also advocate for improved safety controls of these products, which have been found to be effective in the past.

ObjectiveClinical decision support (CDS) hard-stop alerts—those in which the user is either prevented from taking an action altogether or allowed to proceed only with the external override of a third party—are increasingly common but can be problematic. To understand their appropriate application, we asked 3 key questions: (1) To what extent are hard-stop alerts effective in improving patient health and healthcare delivery outcomes? (2) What are the adverse events and unintended consequences of hard-stop alerts? (3) How do hard-stop alerts compare to soft-stop alerts?Methods and MaterialsStudies evaluating computerized hard-stop alerts in healthcare settings were identified from biomedical and computer science databases, gray literature sites, reference lists, and reviews. Articles were extracted for process outcomes, health outcomes, unintended consequences, user experience, and technical details.ResultsOf 32 studies, 15 evaluated health outcomes, 16 process outcomes only, 10 user experience, and 4 compared hard and soft stops. Seventy-nine percent showed improvement in health outcomes and 88% in process outcomes. Studies reporting good user experience cited heavy user involvement and iterative design. Eleven studies reported on unintended consequences including avoidance of hard-stopped workflow, increased alert frequency, and delay to care. Hard stops were superior to soft stops in 3 of 4 studies.ConclusionsHard stops can be effective and powerful tools in the CDS armamentarium, but they must be implemented judiciously with continuous user feedback informing rapid, iterative design. Investigators must report on associated health outcomes and unintended consequences when implementing IT solutions to clinical problems.

Objectives To examine differences in utilization across health care settings among children by body mass index (BMI) categories to help identify opportunities for interventions. Methods A retrospective study was conducted using 1 year of electronic health records following an index primary care visit for children 3 to 17 years old in 2016. Index visits occurred at >40 pediatric practices affiliated with a Northeastern health system. Using normal BMI as a reference group, we examined the extent to which children's BMI percentile categories were associated with primary care visits, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and ED visit acuity. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, and insurance status were used as covariates. Results Of those with biologically plausible values for height and weight (n = 30,352), the prevalences of overweight, obesity, and severe obesity were 16.3%, 12.4%, and 5.7%, respectively. Children outside of the normal BMI range made more primary care visits; however, relative patterns of ED utilization were not consistent. Children with obesity versus normal BMI were less likely to have ED visits of high acuity. Risk of hospitalization was higher among children with overweight or severe obesity. Conclusions Children's BMI categories were associated with health care utilization, specifically primary care visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations. Further investigation is needed to explore the drivers of these differences in utilization, such as the impact of stigma and perceived weight bias on care-seeking patterns, and to examine the role of settings outside of primary care in pediatric weight management.

Objective: Most studies about truncal pain during and after pregnancy focus on low back pain, few prospectively define change in pain, and even fewer evaluate pain in all three major truncal areas: upper back, lower back, and pelvic girdle. Thus, the objective of this prospective cohort study was to describe, in primiparous women delivered vaginally, prevalence rates and severities of upper back, lower back, and pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy and 6–10 weeks postpartum and to describe the trajectory of pain constellations between time points. Study design: Participants completed questionnaires at each time point. Pain intensity was rated on a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100. Results: Of the 288 participants, 94% reported truncal pain during pregnancy, while 75% did so postpartum. Prevalence rates of upper back, lower back, and pelvic girdle pain with or without other types of pain during pregnancy were 42%, 77%, and 74% and postpartum were 43%, 52%, and 41%, respectively. Pain severity was highest for women endorsing pain in three locations (median 55–60). Of women with the most common pain constellation during pregnancy, lower back and pelvic girdle (32%), 18% had persistent low back and pelvic girdle pain postpartum, 20% had no pain, and the remainder had pain in a different location. Of women with pain in all three locations during pregnancy (27%), 34% had persistent pain in three locations postpartum, 13% had no pain, and the remainder had pain in at least one location. Conclusion: More women experience pain in a constellation of locations than in a single location. Severity increases as number of pain sites increase. Women with pain in three sites during pregnancy are least likely to have pain resolve. Interventions should focus on the entire trunk and not simply one site of pain.

Many internal medicine residency programs have transitioned to an X + Y clinic schedule, in which weekly continuity clinics are removed and clinic experience is instead condensed into 2-week blocks interspersed throughout the year, but few pediatric training programs have adopted this approach. We initiated X + Y scheduling in the 2015 academic year, with the hypothesis that outpatient continuity could be maintained or improved while inpatient handoffs would be reduced. We also hypothesized that learner experience with X + Y scheduling would be positive.Continuity and handoffs were compared over a 7-month period in 2013 to 2014 and 2015 to 2016. Outpatient continuity was calculated as the proportion of visits in which the patient was seen by the designated primary care provider (PCP). Handoffs were calculated through analysis of the online resident schedule with comparison of weekly totals for all inpatient teams. Resident perceptions were obtained in an online survey of residents who experienced both systems.With X + Y scheduling, overall outpatient continuity improved from 2914 of 9882 (29.5%) of visits seen by a patient's PCP to 3066 of 9769 (31.4%) (P = .004), but preventive visit continuity decreased from 2170 of 4687 (46.2%) to 2025 of 4709 (43%) (P = .001). Inpatient handoffs decreased with X + Y scheduling from 30 to 20 weekly handoffs (P.001). In total, 85% of residents reported a positive experience with X + Y scheduling.An X + Y scheduling approach in pediatrics is a viable alternative to weekly clinics, resulting in improved learner experience, reductions in inpatient handoffs, and small mixed effects on outpatient continuity.