St. Louis Children's Hospital Critical Care Transport Team

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 246-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Atwood ◽  
Lance Peeples ◽  
Kathy Donovan
2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 889-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Kawaguchi ◽  
L. Duncan Saunders ◽  
Yutaka Yasui ◽  
Allan DeCaen

Background and Objectives: The need to centralize patients for specialty care in the setting of regionalization may delay access to specialist services and compromise outcomes, particularly in a large geographic area. The aim of this study was to explore the effects of interhospital transferring of children requiring intensive care in a Canadian regionalization model. Methods: A retrospective cohort design with a matched pair analysis was adopted to compare the outcomes in children younger than 17 years admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of a Canadian children’s hospital by a specialized transport team (pediatric critical care transported [PCCT] group) and those children admitted directly to PICU from its pediatric emergency department (PED group). The outcomes of interest included mortality 72 hours from initial contact with the critical care team (ie, either PICU transport team or intrahospital PICU team). Results: In total, 680 (27%) transports met our inclusion criteria, whereas 866 (7%) cases of 11 570 total PICU admissions were admitted directly from the emergency department. A total of 493 pairs were formed for the matched analyses. Odds of mortality within 72 hours in the PCCT group were significantly higher than in the PED group (odds ratio [OR]: 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-4.45; P = .032). When excluding cases who had at least one episode of cardiac arrest before involvement of the pediatric critical care (PCC) transport team, the OR dropped to 1.66 (95% CI: 0.77-3.46). Conclusions: Children transported from nonpediatric hospitals had a higher 72-hour mortality when compared to those children admitted directly to a children’s hospital PICU from its own PED in a Canadian regionalized health-care model.


2016 ◽  
Vol 101 (9) ◽  
pp. e2.30-e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Wheeler ◽  
Janet James ◽  
Sarah Byrne ◽  
Julian Forton

AimTo audit oxygen prescribing in a children's hospital following the introduction of a new paediatric medication chart, which incorporates an oxygen prescription section.MethodIn June 2015 a 1-day snapshot audit was carried out across all wards in the children's hospital. All patients receiving oxygen on that day were included:▸ The audit was repeated in July 2015.▸ The standards for the audit were set at 100% in accordance with our local guidelines.1 ▸ All patients receiving oxygen should have a prescription. Of these:▸ All patients should have target saturations identified.▸ All patients should have an administration device identified.▸ All patients should have a nurse signature on the chart within the last 12 hrs.ResultsIn June, 13 patients were receiving oxygen on the audit day. 0/14 had a prescription.In July, 18 patients were receiving oxygen on the audit day. (14 critical care, 4 medicine).4/18 had an oxygen prescription (22%). These were all medical patients. Of these, 4 patients had a target saturation identified (100%), 1 had a device prescribed (25%), and 4 had a nurse signature within the last 12 hrs (100%).ConclusionThe initial audit showed no compliance with either local or national guidance for oxygen prescribing.1 2 The re-audit showed improved prescribing on the medical wards but not within critical care. The new paediatric medication chart was launched early in 2015, along with a training package for doctors, nurses and pharmacists. This was in response to the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) rapid response report on oxygen safety in hospitals.3 There was a gap between the training and the new charts being available which may have led to the poor results in the first audit. Increased awareness of the charts and the initial audit results probably helped improve prescribing in the re-audit. For medical patients, prescribing and monitoring was good, although device was infrequently prescribed. Critical care have not engaged with the new chart and oxygen prescription process. Although the British Thoracic Society guidelines indicate that oxygen for adult patients must be prescribed, these do not currently cover critical care or children under 16 years.2 There are guidelines for children in development which are likely to advocate the same. This could be another reason why there is no prescribing in critical care.Patient numbers were small in this snapshot audit which could limit its validity. Future work will include re-audit in our hospital and audit across the whole region where the new charts have been introduced.


2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 764-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zulfiqar Ahmed ◽  
Paul J. Samuels ◽  
Christine L. Mai ◽  
Samuel Rodriguez ◽  
Ahmed Raza Iftikhar ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia L Hoffman ◽  
Jane Romano ◽  
Monica E Kleinman

Introduction: Hospital-based Code Blue (CB) teams are designed for hospitalized patients (HP) with unanticipated medical emergencies outside of an intensive care unit (ICU). At our pediatric institution, the same team responds to CB calls involving non-hospitalized patients (NHP) such as outpatients, visitors, and staff. The appropriate team composition for responses to NHP emergencies in a children’s hospital has not yet been studied. Hypothesis: There are significant differences between the characteristics of NHP and HP who require emergency medical response, and the majority of responses for NHP do not require advanced emergency or critical care. Methods: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of CB responses at a large, urban, academic children’s medical center over a one-year period (January 1 - December 31, 2017). Rapid response team (different from CB team) activations were excluded. We evaluated the demographic and clinical characteristics of NHP-related CB responses and compared them to HP-related CB responses. Results: The Code Blue team was activated 168 times, of which 135 (80.4%) were NHP-related and 33 (19.6%) were HP-related. Ninety-one (67.4%) of the NHP responses involved adults (age >18 years) compared to 6 (18.2%) of the HP. The CB team transferred 107 (79.3%) of the NHP to an emergency department, and 19 (75.6%) of the HP to an ICU for further care. The primary type of condition and most common critical interventions performed by the CB team are listed in the table below. Conclusions: Code blue activations in our children’s hospital more often involve NHP than HP. NHP responses are more likely to involve adults and infrequently require critical interventions. Use of a pediatric CB team for initial response to NHP events may be an unnecessary use of pediatric critical care resources. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the most effective CB team structure, training, and certification for NHP emergency responses.


2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Hofmann ◽  
Joseph Bolton ◽  
Susan Ferry

Abstract At The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) we treat many children requiring tracheostomy tube placement. With potential for a tracheostomy tube to be in place for an extended period of time, these children may be at risk for long-term disruption to normal speech development. As such, speaking valves that restore more normal phonation are often key tools in the effort to restore speech and promote more typical language development in this population. However, successful use of speaking valves is frequently more challenging with infant and pediatric patients than with adult patients. The purpose of this article is to review background information related to speaking valves, the indications for one-way valve use, criteria for candidacy, and the benefits of using speaking valves in the pediatric population. This review will emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration from the perspectives of speech-language pathology and respiratory therapy. Along with the background information, we will present current practices and a case study to illustrate a safe and systematic approach to speaking valve implementation based upon our experiences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document