ObjectiveTo describe senior paediatric emergency clinician perspectives on the optimal frequency of and preferred modalities for practising critical paediatric procedures.MethodsMulticentre multicountry cross-sectional survey of senior paediatric emergency clinicians working in 96 EDs affiliated with the Pediatric Emergency Research Network.Results1332/2446 (54%) clinicians provided information on suggested frequency of practice and preferred learning modalities for 18 critical procedures. Yearly practice was recommended for six procedures (bag valve mask ventilation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask airway insertion, defibrillation/direct current (DC) cardioversion and intraosseous needle insertion) by at least 80% of respondents. 16 procedures were recommended for yearly practice by at least 50% of respondents. Two procedures (venous cutdown and ED thoracotomy) had yearly practice recommended by <40% of respondents. Simulation was the preferred learning modality for CPR, bag valve mask ventilation, DC cardioversion and transcutaneous pacing. Practice in alternative clinical settings (eg, the operating room) was the preferred learning modality for endotracheal intubation and laryngeal mask insertion. Use of models/mannequins for isolated procedural training was the preferred learning modality for all other invasive procedures. Free-text responses suggested the utility of cadaver labs and animal labs for more invasive procedures (thoracotomy, intercostal catheter insertion, open surgical airways, venous cutdown and pericardiocentesis).ConclusionsPaediatric ED clinicians suggest that most paediatric critical procedures should be practised at least annually. The preferred learning modality depends on the skill practised; alternative clinical settings are thought to be most useful for standard airway manoeuvres, while simulation-based experiential learning is applicable for most other procedures.

Objective: Guidelines adherence in emergency departments (EDs) relies partly on the availability of resources to improve sepsis care and outcomes. Our objective was to assess the management of pediatric septic shock (PSS) in Latin America's EDs and to determine the impact of treatment coordinated by a pediatric emergency specialist (PEMS) versus nonpediatric emergency specialists (NPEMS) on guidelines adherence.Methods: Prospective, descriptive, and multicenter study using an electronic survey administered to PEMS and NPEMS who treat PSS in EDs in 14 Latin American countries. Results:We distributed 2164 surveys with a response rate of 41.5%, of which 22.5% were PEMS. Overall American College of Critical Care Medicine reported guidelines adherence was as follows: vascular access obtained in 5 minutes, 76%; fluid infusion technique, 60%; administering 40 to 60 mL/kg within 30 minutes, 32%; inotropic infusion by peripheral route, 61%; dopamine or epinephrine in cold shock, 80%; norepinephrine in warm shock, 57%; and antibiotics within 60 minutes, 82%. Between PEMS and NPEMS, the following differences were found: vascular access in 5 minutes, 87.1% versus 72.7% (P < 0.01); fluid infusion technique, 72.3% versus 55.9% (P < 0.01); administering 40 to 60 mL/kg within 30 minutes, 42% versus 29% (P < 0.01); inotropic infusion by peripheral route, 75.7% versus 56.3% (P < 0.01); dopamine or epinephrine in cold shock, 87.1% versus 77.3% (P < 0.05); norepinephrine in warm shock, 67.8% versus 54% (P < 0.01); and antibiotic administration within first 60 minutes, 90.1% versus 79.3% (P < 0.01), respectively. Good adherence criteria were followed by 24%. The main referred barrier for sepsis care was a failure in its recognition, including the lack of triage tools. Conclusions:In some Latin American countries, there is variability in self-reported adherence to the evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of PSS during the first hour. The coordination by PEMS support greater adherence to these recommendations.