Should paediatric intensive care be centralised? Trent versus Victoria

Pearson, Gale; Shann, Frank; Barry, Peter; Vyas, Julian; Thomas, David A.; Powell, Colin; Field, David

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)12396-5

Cited by 240 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

143

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a prospective comparison study [1] in Trent in the United Kingdom, with fragmented intensive care for children versus Victoria in Australia with highly organized tertiary pediatric intensive care the odds ratio for the risk of death was 2.09 adjusted for severity of illness (Table 3). Cannot be assessed in patients with intracardiac shunts or chronic respiratory insufficiency; requires arterial bloodgas sampling b May be assessed with capillary blood gases c Assessed only when there is known or suspected CNS dysfunction; cannot be assessed in patients within 24 hrs after sedation, paralysis, anesthesia etc.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reason is the evidence that critically ill children show a better clinical outcome when treated in tertiary pediatric intensive care units than when treated in other pediatric centers [1][2][3][4]. Major problems hindering the transfer of children, requiring tertiary pediatric intensive care, to specialized centers are: 1) the lack of sufficient pediatric intensive care beds in tertiary centers, 2) the reluctance of physicians in general hospitals to refer these critically ill children and 3) the organization of safe transportation of these children on a regular basis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However the number of patients in the nontertiary care centers was very low, impairing the comparison. With these and other studies [1][2][3][4] showing that critically ill children have a better outcome if treated in tertiary pediatric intensive care units rather than in non-tertiary pediatric centers, the provision of intensive care for children has become centralized in tertiary centers in most of the developed countries. In the United States the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have developed guidelines to provide a reference for the regionalization of services for critically ill or injured children [15], and developed admission and discharge policies for critically ill children [16], and the transfer of critically ill patients [17].…”

Section: Introduction 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reason for centralization is that critically ill children show a better clinical outcome when treated in tertiary pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) than when treated in nontertiary pediatric centers [1][2][3][4][5]. Also, interhospital transport of critically ill children by specialist pediatric retrieval teams tends to be associated with a lower incidence of major complications than transport by nontrained personnel [6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since there is substantial evidence that critically ill children have a better outcome if treated in tertiary pediatric intensive care units (PICU) rather than in non-tertiary pediatric centers [1][2][3][4], and therefore the provision of intensive care for children has become centralized in tertiary centers in most countries. This results in more interhospital intensive care transports.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Pediatric interhospital intensive care transport in The Netherlands: Current situation and future perspectives

Vos¹

2004

KIND

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Pediatric interhospital intensive care transport in The Netherlands: Current situation and future perspectives

Vos¹

2004

KIND

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020)

Egi

Ogura

Yatabe

et al. 2021

Acute Medicine & Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020), a Japanese‐specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J‐SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English‐language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese‐language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high‐quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J‐SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU‐acquired weakness [ICU‐AW], post‐intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J‐SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient‐ and family‐centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro‐intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large‐scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE‐based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J‐SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

show abstract

The critically ill children study: a prospective study of the provision and outcome of paediatric intensive care in the South West

Warne¹,

Garland²,

Bailey³

et al. 2000

Evidence-Based Child Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Should paediatric intensive care be centralised? Trent versus Victoria

Cited by 240 publications

References 14 publications

Pediatric interhospital intensive care transport in The Netherlands: Current situation and future perspectives

Pediatric interhospital intensive care transport in The Netherlands: Current situation and future perspectives

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J‐SSCG 2020)

The critically ill children study: a prospective study of the provision and outcome of paediatric intensive care in the South West

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About