Background: Academic emergency medicine is a constant balance between efficiency and education. We developed a new model called swarming, where the bedside nurse, resident, and attending/fellow simultaneously evaluate the patient, including initial vital signs, bedside triage, focused history and physical examination, and discussion of the treatment plan, thus creating a shared mental model. Objectives:To combine perceptions from trainee physicians, supervising physicians, nurses, and families with in vivo measurements of emergency department swarms to better conceptualize the swarming model.Methods: This mixed methods study was conducted using a convergent design. Qualitative data from focus groups with nurses, residents, and attendings/fellows were analyzed using directed content analysis. Swarming encounters were observed in real time; durations of key aspects and family satisfaction scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The qualitative and quantitative findings were integrated a posteriori.Results: From the focus group data, 54 unique codes were identified, which were grouped together into five larger themes. From 39 swarms, mean (AESD) time (minutes) spent in patient rooms: nurses = 6.8 (AE3.0), residents = 10.4 (AE4.1), and attendings/fellows = 9.4 (AE4.3). Electronic documentation was included in 67% of swarms, and 39% included orders initiated at the bedside. Mean (AESD) family satisfaction was 4.8 (AE0.7; Likert scale 1-5). Conclusions:Swarming is currently implemented with significant variability but results in high provider and family satisfaction. There is also consensus among physicians that swarming improves trainee education in the emergency setting. The benefits and barriers to swarming are underscored by the unpredictable nature of the ED and the observed variability in implementation. Our findings provide a critical foundation for our efforts to refine, standardize, and appraise our swarming model.

No abstract

Background: Pediatric Advanced Life Support provides guidelines for resuscitating children in cardiopulmonary arrest. However, the role physicians' attitudes and beliefs play in decision-making when terminating resuscitation has not been fully investigated. This study aims to identify and explore the vital "non-medical" considerations surrounding the decision to terminate efforts by U.S.-based Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) physicians. Methods: A phenomenological qualitative study was conducted using PEM physician experiences in terminating resuscitation within a large freestanding children's hospital. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 physicians, sampled purposively for their relevant content experience, and continued until the point of content saturation. Resulting data were coded using conventional content analysis by 2 coders; intercoder reliability was calculated as κ of 0.91. Coding disagreements were resolved through consultation with other authors. Results: Coding yielded 5 broad categories of "non-medical" factors that influenced physicians' decision to terminate resuscitation: legal and financial, parent-related, patient-related, physician-related, and resuscitation. When relevant, each factor was assigned a directionality tag indicating whether the factor influenced physicians to terminate a resuscitation, prolong a resuscitation, or not consider resuscitation. Seventy-eight unique factors were identified, 49 of which were defined by the research team as notable due to the frequency of their mention or novelty of concept. Conclusion: Physicians consider numerous "non-medical" factors when terminating pediatric resuscitative efforts. Factors are tied largely to individual beliefs, attitudes, and values, and likely contribute to variability in practice. An increased understanding of the uncertainty that exists around termination of resuscitation may help physicians in objective clinical decision-making in similar situations.

Introduction: A rapid response team (RRT) evaluates and manages patients at risk of clinical deterioration. There is limited literature on the structure of the rapid response encounter from the floor to the intensive care unit team. We aimed to define this encounter and examine provider experiences to elucidate what information healthcare staff need to safely manage patients during an RRT evaluation. Methods: This phenomenological qualitative study included 6 focus groups (3 in-person and 3 virtually) organized by provider type (nurses, residents, fellows, attendings), which took place until thematic saturation was reached. Two authors inductively coded transcripts and used a quota sampling strategy to ensure that the focus groups represented key stakeholders. Transcripts were then analyzed to identify themes that providers believe influence the RRT’s quality, efficacy, and efficiency and their ability to manage and treat the acutely decompensating pediatric patient on the floor. Results: Transcript coding yielded 38 factors organized into 8 themes. These themes are a summary statement or recap, closed-loop communication, interpersonal communication, preparation, duration, emotional validation, contingency planning, and role definition. Conclusions: The principal themes of utmost importance at our institution during an RRT encounter are preparation, a brief and concise handoff from the floor team, and a summary statement from the intensive care unit team with contingency planning at the end of the encounter. Our data suggest that some standardization may be beneficial during the handoff.

No abstract

In March 2020, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) published a national strategic plan for COVID-19, which provides general guidelines yet leaves logistical details for institutions to determine. Key capabilities from this plan provided a crucial foundation for a 16-day Emergency Department (ED) surge planning process at one pediatric institution. This paper describes critical milestones and lessons learned during this brief period, including derivation of criteria for ED surge activation, a full-scale surge drill, and the resultant ED surge protocol. The framework of real-time evaluation was used throughout the planning process and involved constant and iterative synthesis of real-time feedback from multidisciplinary stakeholders for responsive decision-making. Ultimately, the objective of this paper is to provide timely and readily actionable information to other institutions seeking guidance to apply the ACEP strategic plan for COVID-19.

No abstract

Objectives: Infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been taught to caregivers of infants in inpatient settings. There are no studies to date that look at teaching infant CPR in the emergency department (ED). Using a framework of cognitive load theory, we compared teaching infant CPR to caregivers in a pediatric ED versus an inpatient setting.Methods: Knowledge tests, 1-minute infant CPR performances on a Resusci Baby QCPR (Laerdal) manikin, and self-reported questionnaires were completed before and after caregivers were self-taught infant CPR using Infant CPR Anytime kits. The proportions of chest compression depth and rate that met quality standards from the American Heart Association's Basic Life Support program were measured.Results: Seventy-four caregivers participated. Mean knowledge scores (out of a total score of 15) increased in both settings (ED preintervention: Mean (M) = 4.53 [SD = 1.97]; ED postintervention: M = 10.47 [SD = 2.90], P < 0.001; inpatient preintervention: M = 4.83 (SD = 2.08); inpatient postintervention: M = 10.61 [SD = 2.79], P < 0.001). Improvement in the proportion of chest compression that met high quality standards for depth increased in the inpatient group only. Neither groups had improvements in compression rates. There were no statistically significant differences in the difficulty of learning CPR, frequency of interruptions/distractions, or difficulty staying concentrated in learning CPR between the 2 settings.Conclusions: Caregivers in the ED and inpatient settings after a selfinstructional infant CPR kit did not demonstrate adequate infant CPR performance. However, both groups gained infant CPR knowledge. Differences in cognitive loads between the 2 settings were not significant.