Refining mass casualty plans with simulation-based iterative learning.

BACKGROUND: Preparatory, written plans for mass casualty incidents are designed to help hospitals deliver an effective response. However, addressing the frequently observed mismatch between planning and delivery of effective responses to mass casualty incidents is a key challenge. We aimed to use simulation-based iterative learning to bridge this gap. METHODS: We used Normalisation Process Theory as the framework for iterative learning from mass casualty incident simulations. Five small-scale 'focused response' simulations generated learning points that were fed into two large-scale whole-hospital response simulations. Debrief notes were used to improve the written plans iteratively. Anonymised individual online staff surveys tracked learning. The primary outcome was system safety and latent errors identified from group debriefs. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of completed surveys, confirmation of reporting location, and respective roles for mass casualty incidents. RESULTS: Seven simulation exercises involving more than 700 staff and multidisciplinary responses were completed with debriefs. Usual emergency care was not affected by simulations. Each simulation identified latent errors and system safety issues, including overly complex processes, utilisation of space, and the need for clarifying roles. After the second whole hospital simulation, participants were more likely to return completed surveys (odds ratio=2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-4.3). Repeated exercises resulted in respondents being more likely to know where to report (odds ratio=4.3; 95% CI, 2.5-7.3) and their respective roles (odds ratio=3.7; 95% CI, 2.2-6.1) after a simulated mass casualty incident was declared. CONCLUSION: Simulation exercises are a useful tool to improve mass casualty incident plans iteratively and continuously through hospital-wide engagement of staff.

At risk child: a contemporary analysis of injured children in London and the South East of England: a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

Background: Injury is a leading health burden in children yet relatively little is reported about the contemporary risks they face. Current national registry data may under-represent the true burden of injury to children. We aim to analyse contemporary patterns of paediatric trauma and identify current factors putting children at risk of injury. Methods: A 3-month prospective multicentre cohort evaluation of injured children across the London Major Trauma System was performed. All children receiving a trauma team activation; meeting National Institute for Health and Care Excellence CT head criteria; or admitted/transferred out due to trauma were included. Data were collected on demographics, mechanism and location of injury, and body region injured. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcome was safeguarding concerns. Results: 659 children were included. Young children were more likely to be injured at home (0-5 years old: 70.8%, n=167 vs adolescents: 15.6%, n=31). Adolescents were more likely to be injured in the street (42.7%, n=85). Head trauma caused over half of injuries in 0-5 years old (51.9%, n=121). Falls were common and increasingly prevalent in younger children, causing 56.6% (n=372) of injuries. In adolescents, penetrating violence caused more than one in five injuries (21.9%, n=50). Most injured children survived (99.8%, n=658), however, one in four (26.1%, n=172) had safeguarding concerns and a quarter of adolescents had police, third sector or external agency involvement (23.2%, n=53). Conclusions: This study describes modern-day paediatric trauma and highlights the variance in injury patterns in young children and adolescents. Importantly, it highlights differences in actual rates of injuries compared with those reported from current national registry data. We must understand real risks facing 21st century children to effectively safeguard future generations. The results provide an opportunity to reassess the current approach to injury prevention, child and adolescent safeguarding, and public health campaigns for child safety.

Paediatric major incident simulation and the number of discharges achieved using a major incident rapid discharge protocol in a major trauma centre: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitals have the responsibility of creating, testing and maintaining major incident (MI) plans. Plans emphasise readiness for acceptance of casualties, though often they neglect discharge planning and care for existing inpatients to make room for the sudden influx.After collaboration and design of a discharge policy for a paediatric MI, we aimed to establish the number of beds made available (primary outcome) to assess potential surge and patient flow. We hypothesised that prompt patient discharge would improve overall departmental flow. Flow is vital for sick patients awaiting admission, for those requiring theatre and also to keep the emergency department clear for ongoing admissions. METHOD AND SETTING: A simulated MI was declared at a London major trauma centre. Five paediatric priority 1 and 15 priority 2 and priority 3 patients were admitted. Using live bed boards, staff initiated discharge plans, and audits were conducted based on hospital bed occupancy and discharge capacity. The patients identified as dischargable were identified and folllowed up for 7 days. RESULTS: Twenty-nine ward beds were created (42% of the total capacity). Handwritten summaries just took 13.3% of the time that electronic summaries took for the same patients by the same doctor. In-hospital transfers allowed five critically injured children into paediatric intensive care unit (PICU), and creation of a satellite PICU allowed for an additional six more if needed. CONCLUSION: We increased level 3 capacity threefold and created 40% extra capacity for ward patients. A formalised plan helped with speed and efficiency of safe discharge during an MI. Carbon copy handwritten discharge letters allowed tracking and saved time. Robust follow-up procedures must be in place for any patients discharged.

Imaging the infant with a head injury: a single-centre retrospective study.

Head injury is the largest cause of mortality in paediatric trauma. Infants (<1 year old) are a high-risk group and vulnerable to non-accidental injury. A single-centre retrospective study at a major trauma centre collected data on infants presenting with a head injury over a 48-month period. 1127 infants presented with a head injury. 135 CT heads were performed. 38% of scans showed intracranial pathology. The decision about which infants to send for CT scans remains complex. Liberal use risks over-exposure to ionising radiation while restrictive use may miss subtler injuries.

Cohort profile of the Biomarkers of Acute Serious Illness in Children (BASIC) study: a prospective multicentre cohort study in critically ill children.

PURPOSE: Despite significant progress, challenges remain in the management of critically ill children, including early identification of infection and organ failure and robust early risk stratification to predict poor outcome. The Biomarkers of Acute Serious Illness in Children study aims to identify genetic and biological pathways underlying the development of critical illness in infections and organ failure and those leading to poor outcome (death or severe disability) in children requiring emergency intensive care. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited a prospective cohort of critically ill children undergoing emergency transport to four paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in Southeast England between April 2014 and December 2016. FINDINGS TO DATE: During the study period, 1017 patients were recruited by the regional PICU transport team, and blood and urine samples were obtained at/around first contact with the patient by the transport team. Consent for participation in the study was deferred until after PICU admission and 674 parents/carers were consented. Further samples (blood, urine, stool and throat swabs) were collected after consent. Samples were processed and stored for genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic analyses. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data at first contact, during PICU stay and at discharge, were collected, as were detailed data regarding infectious or non-infectious aetiology. In addition, 115 families have completed 12-month validated follow-up questionnaires to assess quality of life and child behaviour.The first phase of sample analyses (transcriptomic profiling) is currently in progress. FUTURE PLANS: Stored samples will be analysed using genomic, proteomic and metabolic profiling. Advanced bioinformatics techniques will be used to identify biomarkers for early diagnosis of infection, identification of organ failure and risk stratification to predict poor outcome (death/severe disability). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03238040.

FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial of high-flow nasal cannula therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure in paediatric critical care.

BACKGROUND: Although high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) has become a popular mode of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in critically ill children, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing it with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). We performed a pilot RCT to explore the feasibility, and inform the design and conduct, of a future large pragmatic RCT comparing HFNC and CPAP in paediatric critical care. METHODS: In this multi-centre pilot RCT, eligible patients were recruited to either Group A (step-up NRS) or Group B (step-down NRS). Participants were randomised (1:1) using sealed opaque envelopes to either CPAP or HFNC as their first-line mode of NRS. Consent was sought after randomisation in emergency situations. The primary study outcomes were related to feasibility (number of eligible patients in each group, proportion of eligible patients randomised, consent rate, and measures of adherence to study algorithms). Data were collected on safety and a range of patient outcomes in order to inform the choice of a primary outcome measure for the future RCT. RESULTS: Overall, 121/254 eligible patients (47.6%) were randomised (Group A 60%, Group B 44.2%) over a 10-month period (recruitment rate for Group A, 1 patient/site/month; Group B, 2.8 patients/site/month). In Group A, consent was obtained in 29/33 parents/guardians approached (87.9%), while in Group B 84/118 consented (71.2%). Intention-to-treat analysis included 113 patients (HFNC 59, CPAP 54). Most reported adverse events were mild/moderate (HFNC 8/59, CPAP 9/54). More patients switched treatment from HFNC to CPAP (Group A: 7/16, 44%; Group B: 9/43, 21%) than from CPAP to HFNC (Group A: 3/13, 23%; Group B: 5/41, 12%). Intubation occurred within 72 h in 15/59 (25.4%) of HFNC patients and 10/54 (18.5%) of CPAP patients (p = 0.38). HFNC patients experienced fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (Group A: 19.6 vs. 23.5; Group B: 21.8 vs. 22.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot trial confirms that, following minor changes to consent procedures and treatment algorithms, it is feasible to conduct a large national RCT of non-invasive respiratory support in the paediatric critical care setting in both step-up and step-down NRS patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02612415 . Registered on 23 November 2015.

Paediatric Major Incident Planning at a Major Trauma Centre; Learning from Simulation.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. In light of the recent terrorist attacks in London and Manchester we wanted to test our Major Incident protocol for Paediatrics using simulation. A hospital wide MI Sim was completed in January but focusing on admission pathways, flow and theatre. As a follow up exercise, we wanted to test discharge pathways and our immediate bed capacity in PICU and paediatrics, allowing us to, assess immediate capacity, estimate discharge numbers, test communication pathways, staff responces and next shift planning as well as identifying issues allowing us to improve our major incident policy.

FIRST-line support for Assistance in Breathing in Children (FIRST-ABC): protocol for a multicentre randomised feasibility trial of non-invasive respiratory support in critically ill children.

INTRODUCTION: Over 18 000 children are admitted annually to UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs), of whom nearly 75% receive respiratory support (invasive and/or non-invasive). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has traditionally been used to provide first-line non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) in PICUs; however, high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC), a novel mode of NRS, has recently gained popularity despite the lack of high-quality trial evidence to support its effectiveness. This feasibility study aims to inform the design and conduct of a future definitive randomised clinical trial (RCT) comparing the two modes of respiratory support. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a three-centre randomised feasibility study over 12 months. Patients admitted to participating PICUs who satisfy eligibility criteria will be recruited to either group A (primary respiratory failure) or group B (postextubation). Consent will be obtained from parents/guardians prior to randomisation in 'planned' group B, and deferred in emergency situations (group A and 'rescue' group B). Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either CPAP or HFNC using sealed, opaque envelopes, from a computer-generated randomisation sequence with variable block sizes. The study protocol specifies algorithms for the initiation, maintenance and weaning of HFNC and CPAP. The primary outcomes are related to feasibility, including the number of eligible patients in each group, feasibility of randomising >50% of eligible patients and measures of adherence to the treatment protocols. Data will also be collected on patient outcomes (eg, mortality and length of PICU stay) to inform the selection of an appropriate outcome measure in a future RCT. We aim to recruit 120 patients to the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the National Research Ethics Service Committee North East-Tyne&Wear South (15/NE/0296). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02612415; pre-results.