Influence of epidemics and pandemics on paediatric ED use: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of epidemics and pandemics on the utilisation of paediatric emergency care services to provide health policy advice. SETTING: Systematic review. DESIGN: Searches were conducted of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for studies that reported on changes in paediatric emergency care utilisation during epidemics (as defined by the WHO). PATIENTS: Children under 18 years. INTERVENTIONS: National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies was used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in paediatric emergency care utilisation. RESULTS: 131 articles were included within this review, 80% of which assessed the impact of COVID-19. Studies analysing COVID-19, SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and Ebola found a reduction in paediatric emergency department (PED) visits, whereas studies reporting on H1N1, chikungunya virus and Escherichia coli outbreaks found an increase in PED visits. For COVID-19, there was a reduction of 63.86% (95% CI 60.40% to 67.31%) with a range of -16.5% to -89.4%. Synthesis of results suggests that the fear of the epidemic disease, from either contracting it or its potential adverse clinical outcomes, resulted in reductions and increases in PED utilisation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The scale and direction of effect of PED use depend on both the epidemic disease, the public health measures enforced and how these influence decision-making. Policy makers must be aware how fear of virus among the general public may influence their response to public health advice. There is large inequity in reporting of epidemic impact on PED use which needs to be addressed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021242808.

Shock Index in the early assessment of febrile children at the emergency department: a prospective multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To derive reference values for the Shock Index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) based on a large emergency department (ED) population of febrile children and (2) to determine the diagnostic value of the Shock Index for serious illness in febrile children. DESIGN/SETTING: Observational study in 11 European EDs (2017-2018). PATIENTS: Febrile children with measured blood pressure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serious bacterial infection (SBI), invasive bacterial infection (IBI), immediate life-saving interventions (ILSIs) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The association between high Shock Index (>95th centile) and each outcome was determined by logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, referral, comorbidity and temperature. Additionally, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and negative/positive likelihood ratios (LRs). RESULTS: Of 5622 children, 461 (8.2%) had SBI, 46 (0.8%) had IBI, 203 (3.6%) were treated with ILSI and 69 (1.2%) were ICU admitted. High Shock Index was associated with SBI (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9)), ILSI (aOR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 2.9)), ICU admission (aOR 2.2 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.9)) but not with IBI (aOR: 1.5 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.4)). For the different outcomes, sensitivity for high Shock Index ranged from 0.10 to 0.15, specificity ranged from 0.95 to 0.95, negative LRs ranged from 0.90 to 0.95 and positive LRs ranged from 1.8 to 2.8. CONCLUSIONS: High Shock Index is associated with serious illness in febrile children. However, its rule-out value is insufficient which suggests that the Shock Index is not valuable as a screening tool for all febrile children at the ED.

Development and validation of a prediction model for invasive bacterial infections in febrile children at European Emergency Departments: MOFICHE, a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and cross-validate a multivariable clinical prediction model to identify invasive bacterial infections (IBI) and to identify patient groups who might benefit from new biomarkers. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: 12 emergency departments (EDs) in 8 European countries. PATIENTS: Febrile children aged 0-18 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: IBI, defined as bacteraemia, meningitis and bone/joint infection. We derived and cross-validated a model for IBI using variables from the Feverkidstool (clinical symptoms, C reactive protein), neurological signs, non-blanching rash and comorbidity. We assessed discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve) and diagnostic performance at different risk thresholds for IBI: sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive likelihood ratios (LRs). RESULTS: Of 16 268 patients, 135 (0.8%) had an IBI. The discriminative ability of the model was 0.84 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.82) in pooled cross-validations. The model performed well for the rule-out threshold of 0.1% (sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.99), negative LR 0.1 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.2) and for the rule-in threshold of 2.0% (specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.95), positive LR 8.4 (95% CI 6.9 to 10.0)). The intermediate thresholds of 0.1%-2.0% performed poorly (ranges: sensitivity 0.59-0.93, negative LR 0.14-0.57, specificity 0.52-0.88, positive LR 1.9-4.8) and comprised 9784 patients (60%). CONCLUSIONS: The rule-out threshold of this model has potential to reduce antibiotic treatment while the rule-in threshold could be used to target treatment in febrile children at the ED. In more than half of patients at intermediate risk, sensitive biomarkers could improve identification of IBI and potentially reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions.

Emergency care provided to refugee children in Europe: RefuNET: a cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Refugee children and young people have complex healthcare needs. However, issues related to acute healthcare provision for refugee children across Europe remain unexplored. This study aimed to describe the urgent and emergency healthcare needs of refugee children in Europe, and to identify obstacles to providing this care. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was distributed to European healthcare professionals via research networks between 1 February and 1 October 2017 addressing health issues of children and young people aged <18 years fulfilling international criteria of refugee status, presenting to emergency departments. Survey domains explored (1) respondent's institution, (2) local healthcare system, (3) available guidance and educational tools, (4) perceived obstacles and improvements required, (5) countries of origin of refugee children being seen and (6) presenting signs and symptoms of refugee children. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-eight respondents from 23 European countries completed the survey, and most worked in academic institutions (n=118, 80%). Guidance on immunisations was available for 30% of respondents, and on safeguarding issues (31%), screening for infection (32%) or mental health (14%). Thirteen per cent reported regular teaching sessions related to refugee child health. Language barriers (60%), unknown medical history (54%), post-traumatic stress disorder (52%) and mental health issues (50%) were perceived obstacles to providing care; severity of presenting illness, rare or drug-resistant pathogens and funding were not. CONCLUSIONS: Many hospitals are not adequately prepared for providing urgent and emergency care to refugee children and young people. Although clinicians are generally well equipped to deal with most types and severity of presenting illnesses, we identified specific obstacles such as language barriers, mental health issues, safeguarding issues and lack of information on previous medical history. There was a clear need for more guidelines and targeted education on refugee child health.

Clinical prediction models for young febrile infants at the emergency department: an international validation study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic value of existing clinical prediction models (CPM; ie, statistically derived) in febrile young infants at risk for serious bacterial infections. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified eight CPMs for predicting serious bacterial infections in febrile children. We validated these CPMs on four validation cohorts of febrile children in Spain (age <3 months), France (age <3 months) and two cohorts in the Netherlands (age 1-3 months and >3-12 months). We evaluated the performance of the CPMs by sensitivity/specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration studies. RESULTS: The original cohorts in which the prediction rules were developed (derivation cohorts) ranged from 381 to 15 781 children, with a prevalence of serious bacterial infections varying from 0.8% to 27% and spanned an age range of 0-16 years. All CPMs originally performed moderately to very well (AUC 0.60-0.93). The four validation cohorts included 159-2204 febrile children, with a median age range of 1.8 (1.2-2.4) months for the three cohorts <3 months and 8.4 (6.0-9.6) months for the cohort >3-12 months of age. The prevalence of serious bacterial infections varied between 15.1% and 17.2% in the three cohorts <3 months and was 9.8% for the cohort >3-12 months of age. Although discriminative values varied greatly, best performance was observed for four CPMs including clinical signs and symptoms, urine dipstick analyses and laboratory markers with AUC ranging from 0.68 to 0.94 in the three cohorts <3 months (ranges sensitivity: 0.48-0.94 and specificity: 0.71-0.97). For the >3-12 months' cohort AUC ranges from 0.80 to 0.89 (ranges sensitivity: 0.70-0.82 and specificity: 0.78-0.90). In general, the specificities exceeded sensitivities in our cohorts, in contrast to derivation cohorts with high sensitivities, although this effect was stronger in infants <3 months than in infants >3-12 months. CONCLUSION: We identified four CPMs, including clinical signs and symptoms, urine dipstick analysis and laboratory markers, which can aid clinicians in identifying serious bacterial infections. We suggest clinicians should use CPMs as an adjunctive clinical tool when assessing the risk of serious bacterial infections in febrile young infants.