Hospital visitation restrictions have been widely implemented during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic as a means of decreasing the transmission of coronavirus. While decreasing transmission is an important goal, it is not the only goal that quality healthcare must aim to achieve. Severely restricted visitation policies undermine our ability to provide humane, family-centered care, particularly during critical illness and at the end of life. The enforcement of these policies consequently increases the risk of moral distress and injury for providers. Using our experience in a PICU, we survey the shortcomings of current visitation restrictions. We argue that hospital visitation restrictions can be implemented in ways that are nonmaleficent, but this requires unwavering acknowledgment of the value of social and familial support during illness and death. We advocate that visitation restriction policies be implemented by independent, medically knowledgeable decision-making bodies, with the informed participation of patients and their families.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in health service use have been described across a range of sociodemographic factors. Patterns of PICU use have not been thoroughly assessed. METHODS: This was a population-level, retrospective analysis of admissions to the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center PICU between 2011 and 2016. Residential addresses of patients were geocoded and spatially joined to census tracts. Pediatric patients were eligible for inclusion if they resided within Hamilton County, Ohio. PICU admission and bed-day rates were calculated by using numerators of admissions and bed days, respectively, over a denominator of tract child population. Relationships between tract-level PICU use and child poverty were assessed by using Spearman's r and analysis of variance. Analyses were event based; children admitted multiple times were counted as discrete admissions. RESULTS: There were 4071 included admissions involving 3129 unique children contributing a total of 12 297 PICU bed days. Child poverty was positively associated with PICU admission rates (r = 0.59; P , .001) and bed-day rates (r = 0.47; P , .001). When tracts were grouped into quintiles based on child poverty rates, the PICU bed-day rate ranged from 23.4 days per 1000 children in the lowest poverty quintile to 81.9 days in the highest poverty quintile (P , .001). CONCLUSIONS: The association between poverty and poor health outcomes includes pediatric intensive care use. This association exists for children who grow up in poverty and around poverty. Future efforts should characterize the interplay between patient-and neighborhoodlevel risk factors and explore neighborhood-level interventions to improve child health. WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Poverty adversely affects health. The health impacts of socioeconomic status and poverty occur at the individual and community levels. Socioeconomic disparities in PICU use have not been as robustly assessed compared with other medical disciplines. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Socioeconomic disparities extend to pediatric critical illness. Neighborhood poverty affects children' s need for intensive care. We argue that this association represents more than an aggregate of individual risk factors, and the interplay of individual and community demographics merits further investigation.

This cross-sectional study assesses differences in the accuracy of oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry among Black and White pediatric patients.

Health systems are increasingly investing in efforts to prevent disease and promote health for populations. By and large, these prevention-related interventions have not been inclusive of critical care and the intensive care unit (ICU). However, we suggest that there is value-to patients, families, health systems, and society at large-in extending this continuum into the ICU setting and including the ICU in disease prevention and health promotion efforts. Including the ICU in this continuum allows the critical care perspective to inform (I) advocacy for prevention; (II) efforts to improve disparities in health and health care; (III) mitigation of the negative effects of critical illness and injury as well as ICU exposure; and (IV) promotion of health and well-being in the community. As disease prevention and health promotion rise as priorities within health systems, critical care can and should join, even help lead, the effort.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract