BACKGROUND:Wheezing illnesses are a leading cause of hospitalization for preschool-age children and are frequently treated with antibiotics. Observational studies have shown more frequent isolation of three pathogenic bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Moraxella catarrhalis, and Haemophilus influenzae) from nasopharyngeal samples from children with recurrent episodes of wheezing than from those without such illnesses. METHODS:In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients 18 to 59 months of age who presented to an emergency department with a moderate-to-severe episode of wheezing to receive azithromycin once daily at a dose of 12 mg per kilogram of body weight or matching placebo for 5 days. The primary outcome was the sum of scores on the Asthma Flare-up Diary for Young Children (ADYC) over 5 days. Primary-outcome scores could range from 5 to 35, with higher scores indicating more severe wheezing-related symptoms. Efficacy was assessed separately in patients who tested positive for pathogenic bacteria (the positive cohort) and in those who tested negative (the negative cohort). Secondary outcomes were length of stay in the emergency department, length of hospital stay, and return emergency department visits or hospitalizations within 72 hours. Bacterial clearance and antimicrobial resistance were measured at follow-up visits 1 to 3 weeks after randomization. RESULTS:Among 840 patients who underwent randomization, 521 tested positive for pathogenic bacteria. The trial was stopped for futility by the data and safety monitoring board after a planned interim analysis. ADYC scores did not differ significantly between the azithromycin and placebo groups in either the positive cohort (median, 9.59 [interquartile range, 7.29 to 12.60] vs. 9.72 [interquartile range, 7.66 to 12.17]; P = 0.70) or the negative cohort (median, 9.30 [interquartile range, 6.97 to 11.62] vs. 9.10 [interquartile range, 7.19 to 11.45]; P = 0.69). In the positive cohort, bacterial clearance was 58.7% in the azithromycin group and 11.4% in the placebo group. Secondary outcomes appeared to be similar in the two groups for both cohorts, as did the development of bacterial resistance and the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Azithromycin did not lead to a greater reduction in the severity of wheezing-related symptoms than placebo in preschool-age children who presented to the emergency department with moderate-to-severe acute wheezing. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; AZ-SWED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04669288.).

Importance The Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care (EPIC) study demonstrated improved survival in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) following implementation of the prehospital treatment guidelines. The impact of implementing these guidelines in the subgroup of patients who received positive pressure ventilation (PPV) is unknown. Objective To evaluate the association of implementation of prehospital TBI evidence-based guidelines with survival among patients with prehospital PPV. Design, Setting, and Participants The EPIC study was a multisystem, intention-to-treat study using a before/after controlled design. Evidence-based guidelines were implemented by emergency medical service agencies across Arizona. This subanalysis was planned a priori and included participants who received prehospital PPV. Outcomes were compared between the preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts using logistic regression, stratified by predetermined TBI severity categories (moderate, severe, or critical). Data were collected from January 2007 to June 2017, and data were analyzed from January to February 2023. Exposure Implementation of the evidence-based guidelines for the prehospital care of patient with TBI. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was survival to admission. Results Among the 21 852 participants in the main study, 5022 received prehospital PPV (preimplementation, 3531 participants; postimplementation, 1491 participants). Of 5022 included participants, 3720 (74.1%) were male, and the median (IQR) age was 36 (22-54) years. Across all severities combined, survival to admission improved (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.97), while survival to discharge did not (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.13). Within the cohort with severe TBI but not in the moderate or critical subgroups, survival to hospital admission increased (aOR, 6.44; 95% CI, 2.39-22.00), as did survival to discharge (aOR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.96-6.34). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with severe TBI who received active airway interventions in the field, guideline implementation was independently associated with improved survival to hospital admission and discharge. This was true whether they received basic airway interventions or advanced airways. These findings support the current guideline recommendations for aggressive prevention/correction of hypoxia and hyperventilation in patients with severe TBI, regardless of which airway type is used.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Hypotension has a powerful effect on patient outcome after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The relative impact of hypotension occurring in the field versus during early hospital resuscitation is unknown. We evaluated the association between hypotension and mortality and non-mortality outcomes in four cohorts defined by where the hypotension occurred [neither prehospital nor hospital, prehospital only, hospital only, both prehospital and hospital]. METHODS:Subjects ≥10 years with major TBI were included. Standard statistics were used for unadjusted analyses. We used logistic regression, controlling for significant confounders, to determine the adjusted odds (aOR) for outcomes in each of the three cohorts. RESULTS:Included were 12,582 subjects (69.8% male; median age 44 (IQR 26-61). Mortality by hypotension status: No hypotension: 9.2% (95%CI: 8.7-9.8%); EMS hypotension only: 27.8% (24.6-31.2%); hospital hypotension only: 45.6% (39.1-52.1%); combined EMS/hospital hypotension 57.6% (50.0-65.0%); (p < 0.0001). The aOR for death reflected the same progression: 1.0 (reference-no hypotension), 1.8 (1.39-2.33), 2.61 (1.73-3.94), and 4.36 (2.78-6.84), respectively. The proportion of subjects having hospital hypotension was 19.0% (16.5-21.7%) in those with EMS hypotension compared to 2.0% (1.8-2.3%) for those without (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the proportion of patients with TC hypotension was increased even with EMS "near hypotension" up to an SBP of 120 mmHg [(aOR 3.78 (2.97, 4.82)]. CONCLUSION:While patients with hypotension in the field or on arrival at the trauma center had markedly increased risk of death compared to those with no hypotension, those with prehospital hypotension that was not resolved before hospital arrival had, by far, the highest odds of death. Furthermore, TBI patients who had prehospital hypotension were five times more likely to arrive hypotensive at the trauma center than those who did not. Finally, even "near-hypotension" in the field was strongly and independently associated the risk of a hypotensive hospital arrival (<90 mmHg). These findings are supportive of the prehospital guidelines that recommend aggressive prevention and treatment of hypotension in major TBI.

Study objective Little is known about the out-of-hospital blood pressure ranges associated with optimal outcomes in traumatic brain injuries (TBI). Our objective was to evaluate the associations between out-of-hospital systolic blood pressure (SBP) and multiple hospital outcomes without assuming any predefined thresholds for hypotension, normotension, or hypertension. Methods This was a preplanned secondary analysis from the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care (EPIC) TBI study. Among patients (age ≥10 years) with major TBIs (Barell Matrix type 1 and/or Abbreviated Injury Scale-head severity ≥3) and lowest out-of-hospital SBPs of 40 to 299 mmHg, we utilized generalized additive models to summarize the distributions of various outcomes as smoothed functions of SBP, adjusting for important and significant confounders. The subjects who were enrolled in the study phase after the out-of-hospital TBI guideline implementation were used to validate the models developed from the preimplementation cohort. Results Among 12,169 included cases, the mortality model revealed 3 distinct ranges: (1) a monotonically decreasing relationship between SBP and the adjusted probability of death from 40 to 130 mmHg, (2) lowest adjusted mortality from 130 to 180 mmHg, and (3) rapidly increasing mortality above 180 mmHg. A subanalysis of the cohorts with isolated TBIs and multisystem injuries with TBIs revealed SBP mortality patterns that were similar to each other and to that of the main analysis. While the specific SBP ranges varied somewhat for the nonmortality outcomes (hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, discharge to skilled nursing/inpatient rehabilitation, and hospital charges), the patterns were very similar to that of mortality. In each model, validation was confirmed utilizing the postimplementation cohort. Conclusion Optimal adjusted mortality was associated with a surprisingly high SBP range (130 to 180 mmHg). Below this level, there was no point or range of inflection that would indicate a physiologically meaningful threshold for defining hypotension. Nonmortality outcomes showed very similar patterns. These findings highlight how sensitive the injured brain is to compromised perfusion at SBP levels that, heretofore, have been considered adequate or even normal. While the study design does did not allow us to conclude that the currently recommended treatment threshold (<90 mmHg) should be increased, the findings imply that the definition of hypotension in the setting of TBI is too low. Randomized trials evaluating treatment levels significantly higher than 90 mmHg are needed.

Background: Prehospital and early hospital hypoxia powerfully affect traumatic brain injury (TBI) outcomes. However, the correlations between EMS and hospital O2 saturations are unknown. Using the EPIC Study data (NIH-1R01NS071049; DOD-W81XWH-19-C-0058), we assessed correlations between EMS SpO2 and the risk of major TBI patients arriving at the trauma center (TC) with hypoxia (initial ED SpO2<90%). Methods: Subjects meeting EPIC Study criteria, age ≥10 years, and transported directly to the TC were included. Basic statistics were determined by Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Adjusted odds (aOR) were assessed using logistic regression, controlling for significant confounders. Results: A total of 10,370 subjects were included. Compared to no hypoxia, aORs for death were: EMS, but no TC hypoxia: 2.1 (1.7-2.6), TC, but no EMS hypoxia: 2.5 (1.7-3.8), both EMS/TC hypoxia: 3.2 (2.1-4.8; p<0.0001). Among the 9,243 cases with no EMS hypoxia, only 242 [2.6% (2.3%-3.0%) were hypoxic at TC arrival, compared to 215 of 1127 cases that had EMS hypoxia [19.1% (16.8%, 21.5%); OR: 8.8 (7.2, 10.7); aOR: 4.6 (3.7, 5.7); p<0.0001]. The Figure shows the odds of arriving hypoxic at the TC, based upon the lowest recorded EMS SpO2 (whether hypoxic or not). Conclusion: As expected, hypoxia upon TC arrival was highly correlated with EMS hypoxia (OR 8.8, aOR 4.6). However, it is remarkable that even a single EMS SpO2 below 100% was associated with 2.4 greater odds of TC hypoxia (<90%). Given our recent findings that the optimal odds of survival occurs in patients whose recorded EMS SpO2s were always 100%, these findings argue against the popular concept of preventing “ hyper -oxia” by titrating O2 to maintain SpO2 in the mid/upper 90s. Our results imply that keeping EMS SpO2 as high as possible prevents subsequent hypoxic episodes (i.e., “pre-oxygenation” for unexpected deterioration) and supports maintaining an SpO2 of 100% during the prehospital interval in major TBI.

Study objective: We evaluate the effect of implementing the out-of-hospital pediatric traumatic brain injury guidelines on outcomes in children with major traumatic brain injury. Methods: The Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care for Children study is the preplanned secondary analysis of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care study, a multisystem, intention-to-treat study using a before-after controlled design. This subanalysis included children younger than 18 years who were transported to Level I trauma centers by participating out-of-hospital agencies between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2015, throughout Arizona. The primary and secondary outcomes were survival to hospital discharge or admission for children with major traumatic brain injury and in 3 subgroups, defined a priori as those with moderate, severe, and critical traumatic brain injury. Outcomes in the preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts were compared with logistic regression, adjusting for risk factors and confounders. Results: There were 2,801 subjects, 2,041 in preimplementation and 760 in postimplementation. The primary analysis (postimplementation versus preimplementation) yielded an adjusted odds ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.92) for survival to hospital discharge and 2.41 (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 5.21) for survival to hospital admission. In the severe traumatic brain injury cohort (Regional Severity Score-Head 3 or 4), but not the moderate or critical subgroups, survival to discharge significantly improved after guideline implementation (adjusted odds ratio = 8.42; 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 100thorn). The improvement in survival to discharge among patients with severe traumatic brain injury who received positivepressure ventilation did not reach significance (adjusted odds ratio = 9.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 100thorn). Conclusion: Implementation of the pediatric out-of-hospital traumatic brain injury guidelines was not associated with improved survival when the entire spectrum of severity was analyzed as a whole (moderate, severe, and critical). However, both adjusted survival to hospital admission and discharge improved in children with severe traumatic brain injury, indicating a potential severity-based interventional opportunity for guideline effectiveness. These findings support the widespread implementation of the out-of-hospital pediatric traumatic brain injury guidelines.

While using an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in the weeks after an ED visit reduces repeat visits, few children receive a needed prescription. Because a prescription may not be filled or used, dispensing ICS at discharge and supervising its use at school could overcome both barriers until follow-up care is established. To assess the feasibility of such an intervention, we conducted a pilot study among elementary-age school children with persistent asthma who were discharged from the ED following an asthma exacerbation. Eligible children were randomly assigned to ED-dispensing of ICS with home supervision or ED-dispensing of ICS with home and school supervision. The primary outcomes were ability to recruit and retain participants, ability to initiate school-supervised medication administration within 5 days of discharge, and participant satisfaction. Despite identifying 437 potentially eligible children, only 13 (3%) were enrolled with 6 being randomized to the intervention group and 7 to the control group. Eleven (85%) randomized participants completed the 90-day interview (primary outcome) and 8 (62%) completed the 120-day interview (safety endpoint). Four (67%) intervention participants started their school regimen within 5 business days and 2 started within 6 business days. While our pilot study did not meet its recruitment goal, it did achieve its primary purpose of assessing feasibility before undertaking a larger, more intensive study. Several major recruitment barriers need to be mitigated before EDs can successfully partner with schools to establish supervised ICS treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03952286 . Registered 16 May 2019,

Introduction: The Prehospital TBI Guidelines (PTGs) are intended for both isolated and multisystem TBI (ITBI/MTBI). However, uncontrolled hemorrhage and potential detrimental effects of fluid resuscitation in MTBI may lead to differential effectiveness compared to ITBI. Methods: Preplanned subgroup analysis of PTG effectiveness in ITBI and MTBI from EPIC (before/after system study; 133 agencies, >11,000 trained; NIH R01NS071049). Interventions: Prevention/treatment of hypoxia, hypotension, hyperventilation. Inclusion: Barell Matrix 1; 1/07-6/15. Severity subgroups [Head Region Severity Score (HRSS; AIS equivalent)]: Moderate = 1-2; Severe = 3-4; Critical = 5-6. Definitions: ITBI: TBI with no other RSS ≥3 injury. MTBI: TBI plus non-head region RSS ≥3 injuries. Pre (P1) and post-implementation (P3) cohorts were compared using logistic regression. Results: Cases: 21,852; median age 45 (IQR 24, 66); 67% male. ITBI: 16,663 (76.3%); P1 = 11,602, P3 = 5061. MTBI: 5189 (23.7%); P1 = 3626, P3 = 1563]. Hypotension occurred much more frequently in MTBI (15.8%) than ITBI (4.5%; OR = 3.9 (3.5, 4.4); p<0.0001) and, after PTG implementation, MTBI patients were much more likely to receive a fluid bolus (10.7%; 167/1563) than ITBI (5.3%; 267/5061; p<0.0001). There was highly significant improvement in aOR for survival in severe (HRSS 3-4) ITBI and MTBI (Fig 1). Furthermore, the severe ITBI and MTBI patients who were intubated or who received any positive pressure ventilation (PPV; basic or advanced) also improved dramatically (Fig 2). Conclusions: PTG implementation was independently associated with improved odds of survival in severe ITBI and MTBI. Despite a rate of hypotension 4 times higher in MTBI, survival improvement was at least as strong as for ITBI. Since the MTBI cohort was much more likely to receive fluid resuscitation, these findings support the PTG recommendation for aggressive treatment of hypotension in TBI even in patients with potential ongoing hemorrhage.

Background. Patient satisfaction surveys have become increasingly important as their results help to determine Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement. However, these questionnaires have known sources of bias (self-selection, responder, attribution, and nonresponse). Objective. We developed a real-time (RT) survey delivered in the hospital ED to evaluate the effect of implementing RT patient satisfaction surveys on physician behavior and hypothesized that the timing of patient satisfaction survey delivery would significantly impact the results. Method. Data from real-time patient satisfaction surveys were collected in phases from 12/2015 to 5/2017. Hospital-sponsored (HS) surveys were administered after discharge from 12/2015 to 12/2016. Results. For RT surveys, resident physicians were significantly more likely to write their names on the whiteboard (p=0.02) and sit down (p=0.01) with patients. Behavior modifications by attending physicians were not significant. Patient satisfaction measures did not improve significantly between periods for RT or HS surveys; however, RT survey responders were significantly more likely to recommend the ED to others. Conclusion. The timing of survey administration did significantly alter resident physician’s behavior; however, it had no effect on patient satisfaction scores. RT responders were significantly more likely to recommend the emergency department to others.

Importance Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a massive public health problem. While evidence-based guidelines directing the prehospital treatment of TBI have been promulgated, to our knowledge, no studies have assessed their association with survival. Objective To evaluate the association of implementing the nationally vetted, evidence-based, prehospital treatment guidelines with outcomes in moderate, severe, and critical TBI. Design, Setting, and Participants The Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care (EPIC) Study included more than 130 emergency medical services systems/agencies throughout Arizona. This was a statewide, multisystem, intention-to-treat study using a before/after controlled design with patients with moderate to critically severe TBI (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Barell Matrix-Type 1 and/or Abbreviated Injury Scale Head region severity ≥3) transported to trauma centers between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2015. Data were analyzed between October 25, 2017, and February 22, 2019. Interventions Implementation of the prehospital TBI guidelines emphasizing avoidance/treatment of hypoxia, prevention/correction of hyperventilation, and avoidance/treatment of hypotension. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary: survival to hospital discharge; secondary: survival to hospital admission. Results Of the included patients, the median age was 45 years, 14 666 (67.1%) were men, 7181 (32.9%) were women; 16 408 (75.1% ) were white, 1400 (6.4%) were Native American, 743 (3.4% ) were Black, 237 (1.1%) were Asian, and 2791 (12.8%) were other race/ethnicity. Of the included patients, 21 852 met inclusion criteria for analysis (preimplementation phase [P1]: 15 228; postimplementation [P3]: 6624). The primary analysis (P3 vs P1) revealed an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.06 (95% CI, 0.93-1.21; P = .40) for survival to hospital discharge. The aOR was 1.70 (95% CI, 1.38-2.09; P < .001) for survival to hospital admission. Among the severe injury cohorts (but not moderate or critical), guideline implementation was significantly associated with survival to discharge (Regional Severity Score-Head 3-4: aOR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.52-2.72; P < .001; Injury Severity Score 16-24: aOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.48; P = .02). This was also true for survival to discharge among the severe, intubated subgroups (Regional Severity Score-Head 3-4: aOR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.65-5.98; P < .001; Injury Severity Score 16-24: aOR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.19-11.34; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance Statewide implementation of the prehospital TBI guidelines was not associated with significant improvement in overall survival to hospital discharge (across the entire, combined moderate to critical injury spectrum). However, adjusted survival doubled among patients with severe TBI and tripled in the severe, intubated cohort. Furthermore, guideline implementation was significantly associated with survival to hospital admission. These findings support the widespread implementation of the prehospital TBI treatment guidelines. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01339702.

Introduction: The EPIC Study implemented the national EMS TBI Guidelines in a massive, statewide initiative (>11,000 providers trained, 133 agencies). While implementation was not associated with improved survival to discharge in moderate or critically-severe TBI in the primary (all-age) study, the adjusted odds of survival doubled in severe TBI and tripled in severe, intubated TBI. We now report the preplanned pediatric subgroup analysis (“EPIC4Kids”-NIH R01NS071049). Methods: Multisystem, intention-to-treat study using a before/after controlled design in patients with moderate to critically severe TBI. Interventions: Prevention/treatment of hypoxia, hypotension, and hyperventilation by EMS providers. Inclusion: Age<18; CDC Barell Matrix Type 1; 1/07-6/15. Severity subgroups [Head Region Severity Score (IDC-based AIS equivalent)]: Moderate=1-2; Severe=3-4; Critical=5-6. The pre-implementation (P1) and post-implementation (P3) cohorts were compared using logistic regression (Firth’s approach when comparisons had small event numbers), adjusting for risk factors/confounders. Results: Included were 2801 cases [P1=2041 (72.9%), P3=760 (27.1%); median age 11 (IQR 2, 15); 62.9% male]. The all-severity P3 vs P1 cohort analysis yielded adjusted odds (aOR) of 1.16 (95%CI 0.697, 1.92, p=0.57) for survival. In severe TBI (P1=1405, P3=605; 80% of P3 cases), but not moderate or critical TBI, adjusted survival was significantly improved after implementation (Figure; p=0.049). Improvement in survival for those with severe, intubated TBI (P1=174, P3=44) approached significance (Fig; p=0.11). Conclusion: In the first controlled study of its kind, implementation of the EMS TBI guidelines was independently associated with a dramatic increase in adjusted survival among children with severe TBI. The aOR for survival was even larger than that of the overall (all-age) EPIC Study and supports widespread implementation of the guidelines in children.

In 2018, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and the journal Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) convened a consensus conference entitled, "Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference: Aligning the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Research Agenda to Reduce Health Outcome Gaps." This article is the product of the breakout session, "Emergency Department Collaboration-Pediatric Emergency Medicine in Non-Children's Hospital"). This subcommittee consisting of emergency medicine, pediatric emergency medicine, and quality improvement (QI) experts, as well as a patient advocate, identified main outcome gaps in the care of children in the emergency departments (EDs) in the following areas: variations in pediatric care and outcomes, pediatric readiness, and gaps in knowledge translation. The goal for this session was to create a research agenda that facilitates collaboration and partnering of diverse stakeholders to develop a system of care across all ED settings with the aim of improving quality and increasing safe medical care for children. The following recommended research strategies emerged: explore the use of technology as well as collaborative networks for education, research, and advocacy to develop and implement patient care guidelines, pediatric knowledge generation and dissemination, and pediatric QI and prepare all EDs to care for the acutely ill and injured pediatric patients. In conclusion, collaboration between general EDs and academic pediatric centers on research, dissemination, and implementation of evidence into clinical practice is a solution to improving the quality of pediatric care across the continuum.

BACKGROUND Pediatric emergency care research networks have evolved substantially over the past two decades. Some networks are specialized in specific areas (e.g., sedation, simulation) while others study a variety of medical and traumatic conditions. Given the increased collaboration between pediatric emergency research networks, the logical next step is the development of a research priorities agenda to guide global research in emergency medical services for children (EMSC). OBJECTIVES An international group of pediatric emergency network research leaders was assembled to develop a list of research priorities for future collaborative endeavors within and between pediatric emergency research networks. METHODS Before an in-person meeting, we used a modified Delphi approach to achieve consensus around pediatric emergency research network topic priorities. Further discussions took place on May 15, 2018, in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference "Aligning the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Research Agenda to Reduce Health Outcome Gaps." Here, a group of 40 organizers and participants met in a 90-minute "breakout" session to review and further develop the initial priorities. RESULTS We reached consensus on five clinical research priorities that would benefit from collaboration among the existing and future emergency networks focused on EMSC: sepsis, trauma, respiratory conditions, pharmacology of emergency conditions, and mental health emergencies. Furthermore, we identified nonclinical research priorities categorized under the domains of technology, knowledge translation, and organization/administration of pediatric emergency care. CONCLUSION The identification of pediatric emergency care network research priorities within the domains of clinical care, technology, knowledge translation and organization/administration of EMSC will facilitate and help focus collaborative research within and among research networks globally. Engagement of essential stakeholders including EMSC researchers, policy makers, patients, and their caregivers will stimulate advances in the delivery of emergency care to children around the globe.

Emergency care providers share a compelling interest in developing an effective patient-centered, outcomes-based research agenda that can decrease variability in pediatric outcomes. The 2018 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Aligning the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Research Agenda to Reduce Health Outcome Gaps (AEMCC)" aimed to fulfill this role. This conference convened major thought leaders and stakeholders to introduce a research, scholarship, and innovation agenda for pediatric emergency care specifically to reduce health outcome gaps. Planning committee and conference participants included emergency physicians, pediatric emergency physicians, pediatricians, and researchers with expertise in research dissemination and translation, as well as comparative effectiveness, in collaboration with patients, patient and family advocates from national advocacy organizations, and trainees. Topics that were explored and deliberated through subcommittee breakout sessions led by content experts included 1) pediatric emergency medical services research, 2) pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) research network collaboration, 3) PEM education for emergency medicine providers, 4) workforce development for PEM, and 5) enhancing collaboration across emergency departments (PEM practice in non-children's hospitals). The work product of this conference is a research agenda that aims to identify areas of future research, innovation, and scholarship in PEM.

Each year, more than 30 million children visit U.S. emergency departments (EDs). Although the number of pediatric emergency medicine specialists continues to rise, the vast majority of children are cared for in general EDs outside of children's hospitals. The diverse workforce of care providers for children must possess the knowledge, experience, skills, and systemic support necessary to deliver excellent pediatric emergency care. There is a crucial need to understand the factors that drive the professional development and support systems of this diverse workforce. Through the iterative process culminating with the 2018 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, we have identified five key research themes and prioritized a specific research agenda. These themes represent critical gaps in our understanding of the development and maintenance of the pediatric emergency care workforce and allow for a prioritization of future research efforts. Only by more fully understanding the gaps in workforce needs, and the necessary steps to address these gaps, can outcomes be optimized for children in need of emergency care.

Background: In hospital-based studies, hypotension (HT, SBP <90) is more likely to occur in multisystem traumatic brain injury (MTBI) than isolated (ITBI). However, there are few EMS studies on this issue. Hypothesis: Prehospital HT is associated with differential effects in MTBI and ITBI and these effects are influenced by the severity of primary brain injury. Methods: Inclusion: TBI cases in the EPIC Study (NIH 1R01NS071049) before TBI guideline implementation (1/07-3/14). ITBI: Major TBI cases (CDC Barell Matrix Type 1) that had no injury with ICD9-based Regional Severity Score [RSS (AIS equivalent)] ≥3 in any other body region. MTBI: Type 1 TBI plus at least one non-head region injury with RSS ≥3. Results: Included were 13,435 cases [Excl: age <10 (5.9%), missing data (6.2%)]. 10,374 (77.2%) were ITBI, 3061 (22.8%) MTBI. Mortality: ITBI: 7.7% (797/10,374), MTBI: 19.2% (587/3061, p<0.0001). Prehospital HT occurred 3.5 times more often in MTBI (14.8%, 453/3061 vs 4.2%, 437/10,374; p<0.0001). Among HT cases, 40.8% (185/453) with MTBI died vs 30.9% with ITBI (135/437; p<0.0001). In the hypotensive moderate/severe TBI cohort (RSS-Head 3/4), MTBI mortality was 2.4 times higher (17.2%, 40/232) than ITBI (7.1%, 17/240, p = 0.001). However, in the hypotensive very/extremely severe TBI group (RSS-Head 5/6), mortality was almost identical in MTBI (73.4%, 141/192) and ITBI (72.1%, 116/161, p = 0.864). Conclusion: Among major TBI patients with prehospital HT, those with MTBI were much more likely to die than those with ITBI. However, this association varied dramatically with TBI severity. In mod/severe TBI cases with HT, MTBI mortality was 2.4 times higher than in ITBI. In contrast, in very/extremely severe TBI with HT, there was no identifiable mortality difference. Thus, in cases with substantial potential to survive the primary brain injury (mod/severe), outcome is markedly worse in patients with multisystem injuries. However, in very/extremely severe TBI, non-head region injuries have no apparent association with mortality. This may be because the TBI is the primary factor leading to death in these cases. The main EPIC study is evaluating whether this severity-based difference in “effect” has implications for TBI guideline treatment effectiveness.

"Reply to: Prehospital Intubation: Further Confounders in Trial Results." Prehospital Emergency Care, 22(4), p. 537

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) studies with extensive prehospital data linked to trauma center (TC) outcomes have been small. Thus, risk adjusters like age and systolic BP have been treated dichotomously (e.g. age ≥55, SBP <90). In contrast, the size and linkage rate (98%) of the EPIC Study allows complex analysis. Hypothesis: The interactions between age, SBP, and mortality are neither simple nor dichotomous. Methods and Inclusion: Major TBI cases, age ≥10, in EPIC (NIH 1R01NS071049) before TBI guideline implementation (1/07-3/14). Logistic regression was used to associate death with age and lowest EMS SBP, adjusted for confounders, and fitted nonparametrically using penalized thin plate regression splines through the generalized additive model. Results: Included were 13,435 cases (Excl: 6.2% missing data; Med. age 46; 67.8% male). The Figure shows 3D planar images of the associations between adjusted risk of death (vertical axis), age and SBP. Fig A reveals: 1) there is no “hypotension threshold” below 120 mmHg at any age and this inflection point increases to 135 in older adults; 2) the optimal SBP vs outcome “valley” is very broad (e.g. ~120-180 in the young) and increases with age (~135-190 in the elderly). Figs B/C reveal: 1) mortality increases across the entire spectrum of age, 2) in hypotensive cases (SBP <90), mortality increases linearly with increasing age, 3) in non -hypotensive patients, the adjusted risk of death increases much more rapidly after age 40. Conclusion: Due to the small size of extant EMS studies, the evidence supporting parameters in triage guidelines (e.g. “older adults”) and EMS treatment guidelines (e.g. SBP <90) is weak. This analysis reveals that: 1) the interactions between age and SBP are far more complex than previously understood, 2) the rapidly-increasing risk for “older adults” with TBI begins around age 40, 3) the inflection point for hypotension is much higher than current guidelines suggest and increases steadily with age.

The evidence supporting best practices when treating children in the prehospital setting or even the effect emergency medical services (EMS) has on patient outcomes is limited. Standardizing the critical outcomes for EMS research will allow for focused and comparable effort among the small but growing group of pediatric EMS investigators on specific topics. Standardized outcomes will also provide the opportunity to collectively advance the science of EMS for children and demonstrate the effect of EMS on patient outcomes. This article describes a consensus process among stakeholders in the pediatric emergency medicine and EMS community that identified the critical outcomes for EMS care in five clinical areas (traumatic brain injury, general injury, respiratory disease/failure, sepsis, and seizures). These areas were selected based on both their known public health importance and their commonality in EMS encounters. Key research outcomes identified by participating stakeholders using a modified nominal group technique for consensus building, which included small group brainstorming and independent voting for ranking outcomes that were feasible and/or important for the field.