Objective The objective of this study was to describe the use of intranasal dexmedetomidine (IN DEX) for sedated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations in children. The use of IN DEX for MRI in children has not been well described in the literature. Materials and Methods The Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium (PSRC) is a collaborative and multidisciplinary group of sedation practitioners dedicated to understanding and improving the process of pediatric sedation. We searched the 2007 version of the PSRC database solely for instances in which IN DEX was used for MRI diagnostic studies. Patients receiving intravenous medications were excluded. Patient demographics, IN DEX dose, adjunct medications and dose, as well as procedure completion, complications, interventions, and monitoring providers were analyzed. Results A total of 224 sedation encounters were included in our primary analysis. There were no major adverse events. Most sedations (88%) required no intervention. Registered nurses were the monitoring provider in over 99% of cases. The median (interquartile range) dose of dexmedetomidine was 3 (2.5–3) mcg/kg. Adjunctive midazolam was used in 219/224 (98%) of the cases. All procedures were completed. Conclusions This report from the PSRC shows that IN DEX in combination with midazolam is an effective medication regimen for children who require an MRI with sedation.

We report the largest series of PPS using DEX outside the operating room. Within the PSRC, PPS performed using DEX has a very high success rate and is unlikely to yield a high rate of SAEs.

Pediatric sepsis is a major public health concern, and robust surveillance tools are needed to characterize its incidence, outcomes, and trends. The increasing use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States creates an opportunity to conduct reliable, pragmatic, and generalizable population-level surveillance using routinely collected clinical data rather than administrative claims or resource-intensive chart review. In 2015, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recruited sepsis investigators and representatives of key professional societies to develop an approach to adult sepsis surveillance using clinical data recorded in EHRs. This led to the creation of the adult sepsis event definition, which was used to estimate the national burden of sepsis in adults and has been adapted into a tool kit to facilitate widespread implementation by hospitals. In July 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a new multidisciplinary pediatric working group to tailor an EHR-based national sepsis surveillance approach to infants and children. Here, we describe the challenges specific to pediatric sepsis surveillance, including evolving clinical definitions of sepsis, accommodation of agedependent physiologic differences, identifying appropriate EHR markers of infection and organ dysfunction among infants and children, and the need to account for children with medical complexity and the growing regionalization of pediatric care. We propose a preliminary pediatric sepsis event surveillance definition and outline next steps for refining and validating these criteria so that they may be used to estimate the national burden of pediatric sepsis and support site-specific surveillance to complement ongoing initiatives to improve sepsis prevention, recognition, and treatment. Sepsis is a major cause of death and disability in patients across the age spectrum. In May 2017, the United Nations World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization adopted as a global health priority the need to improve sepsis recognition, management, and prevention, and, among other key points, recognized the substantial toll of sepsis on child health. 1,2 Globally, medical professional societies and sepsis advocacy organizations have played an important role in developing innovative approaches to improve sepsis care for adults and children. 3 In the United States, local, state, and national agencies have targeted sepsis for quality improvement initiatives. New York and Illinois, for example,

Pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) is often performed outside of the operating room, and by various sub-specialty providers. There is no consistency in how pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellows are trained in PPS. The objective of this study was to survey PEM program directors (PDs) and PEM fellows about their current sedation teaching practices via a direct survey. While many fellowship programs train PEM fellows in PPS, we hypothesize that there is no consistent method of developing and measuring this skill. A 12-question survey was sent to PEM PDs directly via email. A separate 17-question survey was sent to current PEM fellows via their program coordinators by email. Each survey had multiple choice, yes-no and select-all program questions. Responses were collected in an online (REDCap) database and summarized as frequencies and percentages. Based on identifiable email, 67 programs were contacted, with a PD response rate of 46 (59%). Sixty-two program coordinators were contacted based on identifiable email with 78 fellow responses. We noted that 11/46 PD respondents offer a formal PPS rotation. Thirty programs report using propofol in the emergency department and 93% of PD respondents (28/30) actively train fellows in the use of propofol. Approximately 62% of PEM fellow respondents (48/78) report sedating without any attending oversight. Twenty-eight percent of PEM fellow respondents report using simulation as a component of their sedation training. PPS is a critical skill. However, there is a lack of consistency in both education and evaluation of competency in this area. An organized PPS rotation would improve PPS case exposure and PPS skills.