ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Patients with multisystem inflammatory disease in children (MIS-C) are at risk of developing shock. Our objectives were to determine independent predictors associated with development of delayed shock (≥3 hours from emergency department [ED] arrival) in patients with MIS-C and to derive a model predicting those at low risk for delayed shock. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 22 pediatric EDs in the New York City tri-state area. We included patients meeting World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C and presented April 1 to June 30, 2020. Our main outcomes were to determine the association between clinical and laboratory factors to the development of delayed shock and to derive a laboratory-based prediction model based on identified independent predictors. RESULTS: Of 248 children with MIS-C, 87 (35%) had shock and 58 (66%) had delayed shock. A C-reactive protein (CRP) level greater than 20 mg/dL (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-12.1), lymphocyte percent less than 11% (aOR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.7-8.6), and platelet count less than 220,000/uL (aOR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.8-9.8) were independently associated with delayed shock. A prediction model including a CRP level less than 6 mg/dL, lymphocyte percent more than 20%, and platelet count more than 260,000/uL, categorized patients with MIS-C at low risk of developing delayed shock (sensitivity 93% [95% CI, 66-100], specificity 38% [95% CI, 22-55]). CONCLUSIONS: Serum CRP, lymphocyte percent, and platelet count differentiated children at higher and lower risk for developing delayed shock. Use of these data can stratify the risk of progression to shock in patients with MIS-C, providing situational awareness and helping guide their level of care.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to traditional simulation education. Because simulation is considered best practice for competency-based education, emergency medicine (EM) residencies adapted and innovated to accommodate to the new pandemic normal. Our objectives were to identify the impact of the pandemic on EM residency simulation training, to identify unique simulation adaptations and innovations implemented during the pandemic, and to analyze successes and failures through existing educational frameworks to offer guidance on the use of simulation in the COVID-19 era. Methods: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM)'s Simulation Academy formed the SimCOVID task force to examine the impact of COVID-19 on simulation didactics. A mixed-methods approach was employed. A literature search was conducted on the subject and used to develop an exploratory survey that was distributed on the Simulation Academy Listserv. The results were subjected to thematic analysis and examined through existing educational frameworks to better understand successes and failures and then used to generate suggestions on the use of simulation in the COVID-19 era. Results: Thirty programs responded to the survey. Strategies reported included adaptations to virtual teleconferencing and small-group in situ training with a focus on procedural training and COVID-19 preparedness. Successful continuation or relaunching of simulation programs was predicated on several factors including willingness for curricular pivots through rapid iterative prototyping, embracing teleconferencing software, technical know-how, and organizational and human capacity. In specific instances the use of in situ simulation for COVID-19 preparedness established the view of simulation as a "value add" to the organization. Conclusions: Whereas simulation educator's responses to the COVID-19 pandemic can be better appreciated through the lens of iterative curricular prototyping, their successes and failures depended on existing expertise in technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. That knowledge needed to exist and synergize within a system that had the human and organizational capacity to prioritize and invest in strategies to respond to the rapidly evolving crisis in a proactive manner. Going forward, administrators and educators will need to advocate for continued investment in human and organizational capacity to support simulation-based efforts for the evolving clinical and educational landscape.