Assessing the New Norm: A Simulation Study to Assess Pediatric Emergency Physician Success in Critical Procedures With an Air Purifying Respirator.

INTRODUCTION: Physicians caring for patients with COVID-19 are at high risk for contracting the disease, thus, significant emphasis has been placed on personal protective equipment (PPE). The study aims to assess the impact of advanced PPE across 4 common procedures: endotracheal intubation, bag-valve mask ventilation, intraosseous (IO) insertion, and lumbar puncture (LP) performed by pediatric emergency physicians. METHOD: Physicians performed the procedures in a simulated environment. Lumbar puncture and IO were performed with standard precautions versus an air purifying respirator (APR). A direct comparison was drawn for endotracheal intubation and bag-valve mask ventilation between 2 commonly used APRs. Success rate and number of attempts toward successful completion was recorded for all 4 procedures. Physicians filled out a postprocedure survey to assess their ease of use of the APR. RESULTS: Twenty participants performed IO and LP using an APR and standard precautions. There was no statistical difference in the success rate, number of attempts, average time, or maintenance of sterility (LP only) for both procedures. Twenty total participants divided across 2 types of APR groups performed intubation and BMV. Success rate and number of attempts had no statistical difference for both procedures. Physician feedback surveys to assess the ease of use of APR compared with standard precautions had no statistically significant difference for all 4 procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Wearing increased levels of PPE did not impact procedural success, length of time, sterility, number of attempts, or the physicians' ease in our study. Physicians should be encouraged to wear all appropriate PPE.

Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Emergency Medical Services Administration of Opioid Pain Medications for Injured Children.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with analgesics for injured children is often not provided or delayed during prehospital transport. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate racial and ethnic disparities with the use of opioids during transport of injured children. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of injured children transported to 1 of 10 emergency departments from July 2019 to April 2020. Emergency medical services (EMS) providers were surveyed about prehospital pain interventions during transport. Our primary outcome was the use of opioids. We performed multivariate regression analyses to evaluate the association of patient demographic characteristics (race, ethnicity, age, and gender), presence of a fracture, EMS provider type (Advanced Life Support [ALS] or non-ALS) and experience (years), and study site with the use of opioids. RESULTS: We enrolled 465 patients; 19% received opioids during transport. The adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were 0.5 (95% CI 0.2-1.2) and 0.4 (95% CI 0.2-1.3), respectively. The presence of a fracture (AOR 17.0), ALS provider (AOR 5.6), older patient age (AOR 1.1 for each year), EMS provider experience (AOR 1.1 for each year), and site were associated with receiving opioids. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant associations between race or ethnicity and use of opioids for injured children. The presence of a fracture, ALS provider, older patient age, EMS provider experience, and site were associated with receiving opioids.