Does Point-of-care Ultrasound Affect Patient and Caregiver Satisfaction for Children Presenting to the Pediatric Emergency Department?

OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) may facilitate the diagnosis and management of children for various conditions. Integration of POCUS into clinical care requires hands-on training; however, providers may be reluctant to perform educational ultrasounds to improve their skills, as it is a procedure without direct clinical benefit to the patient and due to concerns that it may lower a family's overall satisfaction. We sought to evaluate whether the use of POCUS changed overall patient/caregiver satisfaction in a pediatric emergency department (ED) visit. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of children presenting to a single children's hospital ED. We evaluated overall satisfaction for three groups: 1) children undergoing POCUS for educational purposes, 2) children undergoing POCUS for a specific diagnostic indication, and 3) controls who did not receive POCUS. Overall satisfaction was measured using a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). We performed a noninferiority test between patients receiving POCUS and controls using a delta of 10 points to determine significance. We also examined satisfaction among patients receiving diagnostic ultrasound and sought to determine patient/caregiver satisfaction with specific elements of the POCUS experience. RESULTS: We surveyed 159 patients who presented between April 2016 and August 2016 (53 in each group). The three groups did not differ with respect to patient age, sex, or Emergency Severity Index level. The median VAS scores for both the educational and the diagnostic POCUS groups (94 and 94, respectively) were not inferior to the VAS score for the control group (91) with a median (95% confidence interval [CI]) difference of 3.0 (-2.2 to 8.2) for educational and control groups and 3.0 (-1.6 to 7.6) for diagnostic and control groups. No patients/caregivers in the educational POCUS group would refuse an educational ultrasound during a future medical encounter. CONCLUSION: Educational POCUS does not decrease patient/caregiver satisfaction among children presenting to the ED.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound is Associated With Decreased Length of Stay in Children Presenting to the Emergency Department With Soft Tissue Infection.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly being used to differentiate cellulitis from abscess in the pediatric emergency department (ED). POCUS has also been shown to decrease length of stay (LOS) for other applications among adult patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if ED LOS differed for children presenting with skin and soft tissue infections who received POCUS versus radiology-performed ultrasound. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of children presenting to an urban pediatric ED between January 2011 and June 2013 with a diagnosis of cellulitis or abscess who underwent soft tissue ultrasound. Patients who received a surgical consult, had significant medical comorbidities, or had a lesion located on the face, hands, feet, or groin were excluded. We compared ED LOS among children who received radiology-performed ultrasound to children who received POCUS, adjusting for relevant clinical variables. RESULTS: Among 3094 children with a diagnosis of cellulitis or abscess, we identified 202 who underwent a POCUS and 118 who underwent radiology-performed ultrasound. The POCUS group had a shorter median LOS than the radiology-performed ultrasound group (adjusted median difference -73 min; 95% confidence interval -93.6 to -52.4 min). In the subset of patients discharged from the ED, this difference was more pronounced (adjusted median difference -89 min; 95% confidence interval -109.9 to -68.1 min). CONCLUSION: Among children presenting to a pediatric ED with superficial skin and soft tissue infections, children receiving POCUS experienced shorter LOS compared to children receiving radiology-performed ultrasound.

Bedside Ultrasound for Tracheal Tube Verification in Pediatric Emergency Department and ICU Patients: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Improper placement of the tracheal tube during intubation can lead to dangerous complications, and bedside ultrasound has been proposed as a method of quickly and accurately identifying tube placement. Recent studies in adults have found it to be accurate, but its applicability in pediatric patients is unclear. This systematic review aims to describe the current available data on the accuracy and feasibility of bedside ultrasound for tracheal tube placement in children. DATA SOURCES: OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE. STUDY SELECTION: Available articles on bedside neck or lung/diaphragm ultrasound for confirmation of tracheal tube placement in children through December 2015. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data independently. The quality of selected articles was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies statement. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of nine articles were identified: one study using neck ultrasound, two using lung/diaphragmatic ultrasound, one with both, and five studies looking at direct visualization of the tracheal tube tip met our inclusion criteria. There were 81 intubations evaluated using neck ultrasound, 214 intubations evaluated using diaphragmatic or pleural sliding, and 165 intubations evaluated for feasibility of bedside ultrasound in visualizing tracheal tube tip placement. The sensitivities of transtracheal ultrasound for intubation were overall high ranging from 0.92 to 1.00 with excellent specificities at 1.00. For lung ultrasound, the sensitivities for tracheal placement versus esophageal placement were high at 1.00, but only one study reported esophageal intubations and had a specificity of 1.00. When assessing the appropriate tracheal tube depth for tracheal intubations using lung ultrasound, the sensitivities ranged from 0.91 to 1.00 with specificities ranging from 0.5 to 1.0. Regarding feasibility of direct visualization of tracheal tube tip, visualization ranged from 83% to 100%. CONCLUSION: Bedside ultrasound has been described to be feasible in determining tracheal tube placement in several small single center studies and could be a useful adjunct tool in confirming tracheal tube placement in critically ill pediatric patients, but further studies are needed to assess its accuracy in a randomized multicenter setting.

Does numeracy correlate with measures of health literacy in the emergency department?

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to quantify the correlation between general numeracy and health literacy in an emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: This was a prospective cross-sectional convenience sample study of adult patients in an urban, academic ED with 97,000 annual visits. General numeracy was evaluated using four validated questions and health literacy using three commonly used validated screening tools (Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults [S-TOFHLA], Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Revised [REALM-R], and the Newest Vital Sign [NVS]). Scores were dichotomized for health literacy tests to limited (low or marginal) versus adequate health literacy, and the proportion of patients answering all numeracy questions correctly was calculated with the mean proportion of correct responses in these groups. The correlation between numeracy scores and scores on the health literacy screening tools was evaluated using Spearman's correlation. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients were enrolled. Performance on questions evaluating general numeracy was universally poor. Only 18 patients (4%) answered all numeracy questions correctly, 88 patients (20%) answered zero questions correctly, and overall the median number of correct answers was one (interquartile range [IQR] = 1 to 2). Among patients with limited health literacy (LHL) by any of the three screening tools used, the mean number of correct numeracy answers was approximately half that of patients with adequate health literacy. However, even among those with adequate health literacy, the average number of correct answers to numeracy questions ranged from 1.6 to 2.4 depending on the screening test used. When dichotomized into those who answered ≤50% versus >50% of numeracy questions correctly, there was a significant difference between those with LHL and those who scored ≤50% on numeracy. Health literacy screening results were correlated with general numeracy in the low to moderate range: S-TOFHLA rs  = 0.428 (p < 0.0001); REALM, rs  = 0.400 (p < 0.0001); and NVS, rs  = 0.498 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Correlations between measures of general numeracy and measures of health literacy are in the low to moderate range. Performance on numeracy testing was nearly universally poor, even among patients performing well on health literacy screens, with a substantial proportion of the latter patients unable to answer half of the numeracy items correctly. Insofar as numeracy is considered a subset of health literacy, these results suggest that commonly used health literacy screening tools in ED-based studies inadequately evaluate and overestimate numeracy. This suggests the potential need for separate numeracy screening when these skills are important for health outcomes of interest. Providers should be sensitive to potential numeracy deficits among those who may otherwise have normal health literacy.

Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of brief health literacy and numeracy screening instruments in an urban emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of five health literacy screening instruments in emergency department (ED) patients: the Rapid Evaluation of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Revised (REALM-R), the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), Single Item Literacy Screens (SILS), health numeracy, and physician gestalt. A secondary objective was to evaluate the feasibility of these instruments as measured by administration time, time on task, and interruptions during test administration. METHODS: This was a prospective observational cross-sectional study of a convenience sampling of adult patients presenting during March 2011 and February 2012 to one urban university-affiliated ED. Subjects were consenting non-critically ill, English-speaking patients over the age of 18 years without aphasia, dementia, mental retardation, or inability to communicate. The diagnostic test characteristics of the REALM-R, NVS, SILS, health numeracy, and physician gestalt were quantitatively assessed by using the short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA). A score of 22 or less was the criterion standard for limited health literacy (LHL). RESULTS: A total of 435 participants were enrolled, with a mean (±SD) age of 45 (±15.7) years, and 18% had less than a high school education. As defined by an S-TOFHLA score of 22 or less, the prevalence of LHL was 23.9%. In contrast, the NVS, REALM-R, and physician gestalt identified 64.8, 48.5, and 35% of participants as LHL, respectively. A normal NVS screen was the most useful test to exclude LHL, with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.17). When abnormal, none of the screening instruments, including physician gestalt, significantly increased the posttest probability of LHL. The NVS and REALM-R require 3 and 5 minutes less time to administer than the S-TOFHLA. Administration of the REALM-R is associated with fewer test interruptions. CONCLUSIONS: One-quarter of these ED patients had marginal or inadequate health literacy. Among the brief screening instruments evaluated, a normal NVS result accurately reduced the probability of LHL, although it will identify two-thirds of ED patients as high risk for LHL. None of the brief screening instruments significantly increases the probability of LHL when abnormal.

Age-specific human papillomavirus antibody and deoxyribonucleic acid prevalence: a global review.

PURPOSE: Global data on human papillomavirus (HPV) serological and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) prevalence are essential to optimize HPV prophylactic vaccination strategies. METHODS: We conducted a global review of age-specific HPV antibody and studies with both antibody and DNA prevalence for HPV-16, -18, -6, and -11. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen studies were included; participants' ages ranged from several hours to >90 years. HPV-16 seroprevalence was generally higher in Africa, Central and South America, and North America, more prevalent among women than among men, and peaked around ages 25-40 years. HPV-18 seroprevalence was generally lower than HPV-16 with a later age peak. Data were limited for HPV-6 and -11, both of which peaked at ages similar to HPV-18. Among 9-26-year-old females, HPV-16 seroprevalence ranged from 0%-31% in North America, 21%-30% in Africa, 0%-23% in Asia/Australia, 0%-33% in Europe, and 13%-43% in Central and South America. HPV-16/-18 DNA prevalence peaked 10-15 years before corresponding HPV-16/-18 antibody prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Females within the HPV vaccine-eligible age-group (9-26 years) had a range of dual HPV-16 DNA and serology negativity from 81%-87%, whereas 90%-98% were HPV-16 DNA negative. Serology and DNA data are lacking worldwide for females younger than age 15 years, the prime target group for vaccination.

Pooled analysis of a self-sampling HPV DNA Test as a cervical cancer primary screening method.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, one-seventh of cervical cancers occur in China, which lacks a national screening program. By evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of self-collected cervicovaginal specimens tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA (Self-HPV testing) in China, we sought to determine whether Self-HPV testing may serve as a primary cervical cancer screening method in low-resource settings. METHODS: We compiled individual patient data from five population-based cervical cancer-screening studies in China. Participants (n = 13 140) received Self-HPV testing, physician-collected cervical specimens for HPV testing (Physician-HPV testing), liquid-based cytology (LBC), and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Screen-positive women underwent colposcopy and confirmatory biopsy. We analyzed the accuracies of pooled Self-HPV testing, Physician-HPV testing, VIA, and LBC to detect biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+) and CIN3+. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Of 13 004 women included in the analysis, 507 (3.9%) were diagnosed as CIN2+, 273 (2.1%) as CIN3+, and 37 (0.3%) with cervical cancer. Self-HPV testing had 86.2% sensitivity and 80.7% specificity for detecting CIN2+ and 86.1% sensitivity and 79.5% specificity for detecting CIN3+. VIA had statistically significantly lower sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ (50.3%) and CIN3+ (55.7%) and higher specificity for detecting CIN2+ (87.4%) and CIN3+ (86.9%) (all P values < .001) than Self-HPV testing, LBC had lower sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ (80.7%, P = .015), similar sensitivity for detecting CIN3+ (89.0%, P = .341), and higher specificity for detecting CIN2+ (94.0%, P < .001) and CIN3+ (92.8%, P < .001) than Self-HPV testing. Physician-HPV testing was more sensitive for detecting CIN2+ (97.0%) and CIN3+ (97.8%) but similarly specific for detecting CIN2+ (82.7%) and CIN3+ (81.3%) (all P values <.001) than Self-HPV testing. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of Self-HPV testing compared favorably with that of LBC and was superior to the sensitivity of VIA. Self-HPV testing may complement current screening programs by increasing population coverage in settings that do not have easy access to comprehensive cytology-based screening.