Pediatric procedural sedation in African clinical settings: A mixed methods study of African providers' sedation practices.

Background: Little is known about the practice of pediatric procedural sedation in Africa, despite being incredibly useful to the emergency care of children. This study describes the clinical experiences of African medical providers who use pediatric procedural sedation, including clinical indications, medications, adverse events, training, clinical guideline use, and comfort level. The goals of this study are to describe pediatric sedation practices in resource-limited settings in Africa and identify potential barriers to the provision of safe pediatric sedation. Methods: This mixed methods study describes the pediatric procedural sedation practices of African providers using semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to identify key informants working in African resource-limited settings across a broad geographic, economic, and professional range. Quantitative data about provider background and sedation practices were collected concurrently with qualitative data about perceived barriers to pediatric procedural sedation and suggestions to improve the practice of pediatric sedation in their settings. All interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for major themes. Results: Thirty-eight key informants participated, representing 19 countries and the specialties of Anesthesia, Surgery, Pediatrics, Critical Care, Emergency Medicine, and General Practice. The most common indication for pediatric sedation was imaging (42%), the most common medication used was ketamine (92%), and hypoxia was the most common adverse event (61%). Despite 92% of key informants stating that pediatric procedural sedation was critical to their practice, only half reported feeling adequately trained. The three major qualitative themes regarding barriers to safe pediatric sedation in their settings were: lack of resources, lack of education, and lack of standardization across sites and providers. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that training specialized pediatric sedation teams, creating portable "pediatric sedation kits," and producing locally relevant pediatric sedation guidelines may help reduce current barriers to the provision of safe pediatric sedation in resource-limited African settings.

Pediatric procedural sedation in African clinical settings: A mixed methods study of African providers' sedation practices

Background: Little is known about the practice of pediatric procedural sedation in Africa, despite being incredibly useful to the emergency care of children. This study describes the clinical experiences of African medical providers who use pediatric proceduralsedation, including clinical indications, medications, adverse events, training, clinical guideline use, and comfort level. The goals of this study are to describe pediatric sedation practices in resource-limited settings in Africa and identify potential barriers to the provision of safe pediatric sedation. Methods: This mixed methods study describes the pediatric procedural sedation practices of African providers using semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to identify key informants working in African resource-limited settings across a broad geographic, economic, and professional range. Quantitative data about provider background and sedation practices were collected concurrently with qualitative data about perceived barriers to pediatric procedural sedation and suggestions to improve the practice of pediatric sedation in their settings. All interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for major themes. Results: Thirty-eight key informants participated, representing 19 countries and the specialties of Anesthesia, Surgery, Pediatrics, Critical Care, Emergency Medicine, and General Practice. The most common indication for pediatric sedation was imaging (42%), the most common medication used was ketamine (92%), and hypoxia was the most common adverse event (61%). Despite 92% of key informants stating that pediatric procedural sedation was critical to their practice, only half reported feeling adequately trained. The three major qualitative themes regarding barriers to safe pediatric sedation in their settings were: lack of resources, lack of education, and lack of standardization across sites and providers. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that training specialized pediatric sedation teams, creating portable "pediatric sedation kits," and producing locally relevant pediatric sedation guidelines may help reduce current barriers to the provision of safe pediatric sedation in resource-limited African settings.

Paediatric trauma education in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic literature review.

Background: Trauma-specific training improves clinician comfort and reduces patient morbidity and mortality; however, curricular content, especially with regard to paediatric trauma, varies greatly by region and income status. We sought to understand how much paediatric education is included in trauma curricula taught in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review in October 2020 and in July 2022 based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing seven databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane Trials, and Global Index Medicus. Reports were limited to those from World Bank-designated LMICs. Key information reviewed included use of a trauma curriculum, patient-related outcomes, and provider/participant outcomes. Results: The search yielded 2008 reports, with 987 included for initial screening. Thirty-nine of these were selected for review based on inclusion criteria. Sixteen unique trauma curricula used in LMICs were identified, with only two being specific to paediatric trauma. Seven of the adult-focused trauma programmes included sections on paediatric trauma. Curricular content varied significantly in educational topics and skills assessed. Among the 39 included curricula, 33 were evaluated based on provider-based outcomes and six on patient-based outcomes. All provider-based outcome reports showed increased knowledge acquisition and comfort. Four of the five patient-based outcome reports showed reduction in trauma-related morbidity and mortality. Conclusion: Trauma curricula in LMICs positively impact provider knowledge and may decrease trauma-related morbidity and mortality; however, there is significant variability in existing trauma curricula regarding to paediatric-specific content. Trauma education in LMICs should expand paediatric-specific education, as this population appears to be underserved by most existing curricula.

National Needs Assessment for a Pediatric Trauma Toolkit: General Requirements for Moderate- and High-Volume Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Optimal outcomes have been reported for children treated at pediatric trauma centers; however, most children are treated at nonpediatric trauma centers or nonpediatric general hospitals. Hospitals that are not verified or designated pediatric trauma centers may lack the training and level of comfort and skill when treating severely injured children. OBJECTIVE: This study focused on identifying common pediatric guidelines for standardization across all trauma centers to inform a pediatric trauma toolkit. METHODS: A needs assessment survey was developed highlighting the guidelines from an expert committee review. The purpose of the survey was to prioritize needed items for the development of a pediatric trauma toolkit. Professional trauma organizations distributed the survey to their respective memberships to ensure good representation of people who care for traumatically injured children and work in trauma centers. Deidentified survey results were analyzed with frequencies and descriptive statistics provided. Data were compared by hospital trauma verification level using a chi-square test. The value of p < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 303 people responded to the survey. The majority of respondents reported a high value in the creation of a pediatric trauma toolkit for the guidelines that were included. There was variability in the reported access to the guidelines, indicating a significant need for the toolkit development and dissemination. CONCLUSION: As expected, Level III centers reported the largest gaps in access to standardized pediatric guidelines and demonstrated high levels of interest and need.