Search

OBJECTIVES: Caregiver attitudes toward mandating COVID-19 vaccines for their children are poorly understood. We aimed to determine caregiver acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for schools/daycares and assess if opposition to mandates would result in removal of children from the educational system. STUDY DESIGN: Perform a cross-sectional, anonymous survey of adult caregivers with children ≤ 18 years presenting to 21 pediatric emergency departments in the United States, Canada, Israel, and Switzerland, November 1st through December 31st, 2021. The primary outcome was caregiver acceptance rates for school vaccine mandates, and the secondary outcomes included factors associated with mandate acceptance and caregiver intention to remove the child from school. RESULTS: Of 4,393 completed surveys, 37% of caregivers were opposed to any school vaccine mandate. Caregiver acceptance was lowest for daycare settings (33%) and increased as the childs level of education increased, college (55%). 26% of caregivers report a high likelihood (score of 8-10 on 0-10 scale) to remove their child from school if the vaccine became mandatory. Child safety was caregivers greatest concern over vaccine mandates. A multivariable model demonstrated intent to vaccinate their child for COVID-19 (OR = 8.9, 95% CI 7.3 to 10.8; P

While undesirable, unexpected disruptions offer unique opportunities to enact adaptive expertise. For adaptive expertise to flourish, individuals and teams must embrace both efficiency and adaptation. While some industries do it readily, others continue to struggle with the tension between efficiency and adaptation, particularly when otherwise stable situations are unexpectedly disrupted. For instance, in healthcare settings, the efficiency mandate for strict compliance with scopes of practice can deter teams from using the adaptive strategy of making their members interchangeable. Yet, interchangeability has been hinted as a key capacity of today' teams that are required to navigate fluid team structures. Because interchangeability -- as an adaptive strategy -- can generate antagonistic reactions, it has not been well studied in fluid teams. Thus, in this exploratory qualitative study we sought to gain insights into how interchangeability manifests when fluid teams from five different contexts (healthcare, emergency services, orchestras, military, and business) deal with disruptive events. According to our participants, successful interchangeability was possible when people knew how to work within one's role while being aware of their teammates' roles. However, interchangeability included more than just role switching. Interchangeability took various forms and was most successful when teams capitalized on the procedural, emotional, and social dimensions of their work. To reflect this added complexity, we refer to interchangeability in fluid teams as Ecological Interchangeability. We suggest that ecological interchangeability may become a desired feature in the training of adaptive expertise in teams, if its underlying properties and enabling mechanisms are more fully understood.

Background/aimsDespite evidence that preferential use of balanced/buffered fluids may improve outcomes compared with chloride-rich 0.9% saline, saline remains the most commonly used fluid for children with septic shock. We aim to determine if resuscitation with balanced/buffered fluids as part of usual care will improve outcomes, in part through reduced kidney injury and without an increase in adverse effects, compared to 0.9% saline for children with septic shock.MethodsThe Pragmatic Pediatric Trial of Balanced versus Normal Saline Fluid in Sepsis (PRoMPT BOLUS) study is an international, open-label pragmatic interventional trial being conducted at > 40 sites in the USA, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand starting on August 25, 2020, and continuing for 5 years. Children > 6 months to

BACKGROUND:Acute severe childhood asthma is an infrequent, but potentially life-threatening emergency condition. There is a wide range of different approaches to this condition, with very little supporting evidence, leading to significant variation in practice. To improve knowledge in this area, there must first be consensus on how to conduct clinical trials, so that valid comparisons can be made between future studies. We have formed an international working group comprising paediatricians and emergency physicians from North America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America, Central America, Australasia and the United Kingdom. METHODS/DESIGN:A 5-stage approach will be used: (1) a comprehensive list of outcomes relevant to stakeholders will be compiled through systematic reviews and qualitative interviews with patients, families, and clinicians; (2) Delphi methodology will be applied to reduce the comprehensive list to a core outcome set; (3) we will review current clinical practice guidelines, existing clinical trials, and literature on bedside assessment of asthma severity. We will then identify practice differences in tne clinical assessment of asthma severity, and determine whether further prospective work is needed to achieve agreement on inclusion criteria for clinical trials in acute paediatric asthma in the emergency department (ED) setting; (4) a retrospective chart review in Australia and New Zealand will identify the incidence of serious clinical complications such as intubation, ICU admission, and death in children hospitalized with acute severe asthma. Understanding the incidence of such outcomes will allow us to understand how common (and therefore how feasible) particular outcomes are in asthma in the ED setting; and finally (5) a meeting of the Pediatric Emergency Research Networks (PERN) asthma working group will be held, with invitation of other clinicians interested in acute asthma research, and patients/families. The group will be asked to achieve consensus on a core set of outcomes and to make recommendations for the conduct of clinical trials in acute severe asthma. If this is not possible, the group will agree on a series of prioritized steps to achieve this aim. DISCUSSION:The development of an international consensus on core outcomes is an important first step towards the development of consensus guidelines and standardised protocols for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this population. This will enable us to better interpret and compare future studies, reduce risks of study heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias, and improve the evidence base for the management of this important condition.