Current State of Institutional Privileging Profiles for Pediatric Procedural Sedation Providers

Recommendations for non-anaesthesia providers in sedation and analgesia procedures

Pain and the anxiety that it produces are the main sources of suffering in children managed in emergency departments, eliciting a growing interest in parents and health care providers in the adequate provision of sedation and analgesia. In consequence, the number of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that require sedation and/or analgesia in paediatric emergency departments has increased in recent years, which has generated a need to train non-anaesthesiologists on how to provide this care without affecting patient safety. The objective of this document is to establish evidence-based recommendations, developed by consensus by the Working Group on Sedation and Analgesia of the Sociedad Española de Urgencias de Pediatría, regarding the competencies and training of staff who perform sedation or analgesia procedures to achieve the greatest possible quality in the management of paediatric patients before, during and after these procedures in the paediatric emergency care setting. The consensus document has been structured in two parts: the first addresses the competencies of non-anaesthesiologists who perform sedoanalgesia procedures, and the second how to obtain the necessary training. A list of research questions was prepared, keywords defined and a literature search carried out to break down and summarise the available evidence. The results are presented in the form of conclusions, which were subjected to anonymous voting by each of the members of the working group. For each of the conclusions, we provide the percent agreement obtained in the voting.

Evaluation of pediatric procedural sedation education in pediatric emergency medicine fellowships

ABSTRACT

Pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) is often performed outside of the operating room, and by various sub-specialty providers. There is no consistency in how pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellows are trained in PPS. The objective of this study was to survey PEM program directors (PDs) and PEM fellows about their current sedation teaching practices via a direct survey. While many fellowship programs train PEM fellows in PPS, we hypothesize that there is no consistent method of developing and measuring this skill.A 12-question survey was sent to PEM PDs directly via email. A separate 17-question survey was sent to current PEM fellows via their program coordinators by email. Each survey had multiple choice, yes-no and select-all program questions. Responses were collected in an online (REDCap) database and summarized as frequencies and percentages.Based on identifiable email, 67 programs were contacted, with a PD response rate of 46 (59%). Sixty-two program coordinators were contacted based on identifiable email with 78 fellow responses. We noted that 11/46 PD respondents offer a formal PPS rotation. Thirty programs report using propofol in the emergency department and 93% of PD respondents (28/30) actively train fellows in the use of propofol. Approximately 62% of PEM fellow respondents (48/78) report sedating without any attending oversight. Twenty-eight percent of PEM fellow respondents report using simulation as a component of their sedation training.PPS is a critical skill. However, there is a lack of consistency in both education and evaluation of competency in this area. An organized PPS rotation would improve PPS case exposure and PPS skills.

Trends in Outpatient Procedural Sedation: 2007-2018

BACKGROUND

Pediatric subspecialists routinely provide procedural sedation outside the operating room. No large study has reported trends in outpatient pediatric procedural sedation. Our purpose in this study was to identify significant trends in outpatient procedural sedation using the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 2007 to 2018 were used for trending procedural sedation. Patient characteristics, medications, type of providers, serious adverse events, and interventions were reported. The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to explore the association between the year and a given characteristic.

RESULTS

A total of 432 842 sedation encounters were identified and divided into 3 4-year epochs (2007-2011, 2011-2014, and 2014-2018). There was a significant decrease in infants <3 months of age receiving procedural sedation (odds ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.98). A large increase was noticed in pediatric hospitalists providing procedural sedation (0.6%-9.5%; P < .001); there was a decreasing trend in sedation by other providers who were not in emergency medicine, critical care, or anesthesiology (13.9%-3.9%; P < .001). There was an increasing trend in the use of dexmedetomidine (6.3%-9.3%; P < .001) and a decreasing trend in the use of chloral hydrate (6.3%-0.01%; P < .001) and pentobarbital (7.3%-0.5%; P < .001). Serious adverse events showed a nonsignificant increase overall (1.35%-1.75%).

CONCLUSIONS

We report an increase in pediatric hospitalists providing sedation and a significant decrease in the use of chloral hydrate and pentobarbital by providers. Further studies are required to see if sedation services decrease costs and optimize resource use.

Evaluating the Need for Pediatric Procedural Sedation Training in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Fellowship

OBJECTIVES

Pediatric procedural sedation has been increasingly performed by pediatric intensivists over the past decade. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellowship guidelines do not specify how fellows obtain proficiency in pediatric procedural sedation. We sought to survey the state of pediatric procedural sedation training during fellowship and whether fellows thought it was sufficient.

DESIGN

A 21-question survey gathered data on pediatric procedural sedation training provided to Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellows. Surveys were sent to fellowship directors with instructions to distribute to second- and third-year fellows or recent graduates. Over 2 months, up to three e-mail reminders were sent to fellowship directors whose program had not completed at least one survey.

SUBJECTS

Senior fellows and graduates of 65 active Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellowship programs.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five percent of fellowship programs (42/65) returned at least one response. Ninety senior fellows and 27 recent graduates responded. Of respondents, 38% received pediatric procedural sedation training during the fellowship, and 32% reported mandatory training. Nine percent of programs used simulation. Although 61% who received training felt adequately prepared to perform pediatric procedural sedation, 25% needed additional preceptorship to sedate independently. Nearly one third (31%) reported that completion of a predetermined number of cases was required to sedate independently. Forty-eight percent reported a minimum number of cases was required for hospital credentialing. Nearly 45% were allowed to perform pediatric procedural sedation off the unit after receiving credentials. When asked if inadequate pediatric procedural sedation training would be a deterrent to applying for a position that included pediatric procedural sedation, 8.6% replied yes, 52.6% replied no, and 38.8% replied they were unsure.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric procedural sedation lacks a clearly defined training pathway. Most fellows find pediatric procedural sedation a valuable skill set. We propose that all Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellows receive training that includes pediatric procedural sedation critical incident simulation and cases performed outside the PICU to establish proficiency.

Variation in Pediatric Procedural Sedations Across Children's Hospital Emergency Departments

OBJECTIVES

Describe the trends in pediatric sedation use over time and determine variation in use of procedural sedation across children's hospital emergency departments (EDs).

METHODS

We analyzed ED data from 35 hospitals within the Pediatric Health Information System for patients <19 years old who received sedation medications and were discharged from 2009 to 2014. Patients with chronic comorbidities or undergoing intubation were excluded. We determined frequency and trends in use of sedation and compared these between EDs. Descriptive statistics with appropriate weighting were used.

RESULTS

Of the 1 448 011 patients potentially requiring sedation who presented to the ED, 99 951 (7.9%) underwent procedural sedation. Medication usage in 2014 included ketamine (73.7%), fentanyl and midazolam (15.9%), ketofol (7.3%), and propofol (2.7%). Use of fentanyl and midazolam increased, whereas use of ketamine, pentobarbital, etomidate, chloral hydrate, and methohexital decreased over time. Significant variation exists in the use of sedation across hospitals; in 2014, the sedation rate ranged 0.2% to 32.0%, with a median of 8.0%. The diagnosis with the largest variation in procedural sedation use was dislocation, with sedation rates ranging from 2% to 35%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability across pediatric EDs in the use of procedural sedation, suggesting sedations may be performed too often or too little in some hospitals.

Pediatric Procedural Sedation Using the Combination of Ketamine and Propofol Outside of the Emergency Department: A Report From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium

OBJECTIVES

Outcomes associated with a sedative regimen comprised ketamine + propofol for pediatric procedural sedation outside of both the pediatric emergency department and operating room are underreported. We used the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium database to describe a multicenter experience with ketamine + propofol by pediatric sedation providers.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study of children receiving IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation outside of the operating room and emergency department using data abstracted from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium during 2007-2015.

SETTING

Procedural sedation services from academic, community, free-standing children's hospitals, and pediatric wards within general hospitals.

PATIENTS

Children from birth to less than or equal to 21 years old.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 7,313 pediatric procedural sedations were performed using IV ketamine + propofol as the primary sedative regimen. Median age was 84 months (range, < 1 mo to ≤ 21 yr; interquartile range, 36-144); 80.6% were American Society of Anesthesiologists-Physical Status less than III. The majority of sedation was performed in dedicated sedation or radiology units (76.1%). Procedures were successfully completed in 99.8% of patients. Anticholinergics (glycopyrrolate and atropine) or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) were used in 14.2% and 41.3%, respectively. The overall adverse event and serious adverse event rates were 9.79% (95% CI, 9.12-10.49%) and 3.47% (95% CI, 3.07-3.92%), respectively. No deaths occurred. Risk factors associated with an increase in odds of adverse event included ASA status greater than or equal to III, dental suite, cardiac catheterization laboratory or radiology/sedation suite location, a primary diagnosis of having a gastrointestinal illness, and the coadministration of an anticholinergic.

CONCLUSIONS

Using Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium data, we describe the diverse use of IV ketamine + propofol for procedural sedation in the largest reported cohort of children to date. Data from this study may be used to design sufficiently powered prospective randomized, double-blind studies comparing outcomes of sedation between commonly administered sedative and analgesic medication regimens.

Evaluation of methohexital as an alternative to propofol in a high volume outpatient pediatric sedation service

BACKGROUND

Propofol is a preferred agent for many pediatric sedation providers because of its rapid onset and short duration of action. It allows for quick turn around times and enhanced throughput. Occasionally, intravenous (IV) methohexital (MHX), an ultra-short acting barbiturate is utilized instead of propofol.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the experience with MHX in a primarily propofol driven outpatient sedation program and to see if it serves as an acceptable alternative when propofol is not the preferred pharmacologic option.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review from 2012 to 2015 of patients receiving IV MHX as their primary sedation agent. Data collected included demographics, reason for methohexital use, dosing, type of procedure, success rate, adverse events (AE), duration of the procedure, and time to discharge.

RESULTS

Methohexital was used in 240 patient encounters. Median age was 4years (IQR 2-7), 71.8% were male, and 80.4% were ASA-PS I or II. Indications for MHX use: egg+soy/peanut allergy in 93 (38.8%) and mitochondrial disorder 9 (3.8%). Median induction bolus was 2.1mg/kg (IQR, 1.9-2.8), median maintenance infusion was 4.5mg/kg/h (IQR, 3.0-6.0). Hiccups 15 (6.3%), secretions requiring intervention 14 (5.8%), and cough 12 (5.0%) were the most commonly occurring minor AEs. Airway obstruction was seen in 28 (11.6%). Overall success rate was 94%. Median time to discharge after procedure completion was 40.5min (IQR 28-57).

CONCLUSION

Methohexital can be used with a high success rate and AEs that are not inconsistent with propofol administration. Methohexital should be considered when propofol is not a preferred option.

Pediatric Procedural Sedation Using Dexmedetomidine: A Report From the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium

OBJECTIVES

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is widely used in pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) by a variety of pediatric subspecialists. The objective of our study was to describe the overall rates of adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs) when DEX is used by various pediatric subspecialists.

METHODS

Patients from the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium (PSRC) database were retrospectively reviewed and children that received DEX as their primary sedation agent for elective PPS were identified. Demographic and clinical data, provider subspecialty, and sedation-related complications were abstracted. SAEs were defined as death, cardiac arrest, upper airway obstruction, laryngospasm, emergent airway intervention, unplanned hospital admission/increased level of care, aspiration, or emergency anesthesia consult. Event rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

During the study period, 13 072 children were sedated using DEX, accounting for 5.3% of all sedation cases entered into the PSRC. Of the sedated patients, 73% were American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status class 1 or 2. The pediatric providers responsible for patients sedated with DEX were anesthesiologists (35%), intensivists (34%), emergency medicine physicians (12.7%), hospitalists (1.1%), and others (17%). The overall AE rate was 466/13 072 (3.6%, 95% CI 3.3% to 3.9%). The overall SAE rate was 45/13 072 (0.34%, 95% CI 0.19% to 0.037%). Airway obstruction was the most common SAE: 35/13 072 (0.27%, 95% CI 0.19% to 0.37%). Sedations were successful in 99.7% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the largest series of PPS using DEX outside the operating room. Within the PSRC, PPS performed using DEX has a very high success rate and is unlikely to yield a high rate of SAEs.