Background Caregiver depression is common, can negatively influence one's ability to communicate with healthcare providers, and may hinder appropriate care for children with asthma. Objective To evaluate the impact of caregiver depression on communication and self-efficacy in interactions about asthma with their child's physician. Study Design Cross sectional analysis using data from the Prompting Asthma Intervention in Rochester–Uniting Parents and Providers study. Methods We enrolled caregivers of children (2–12 yrs) with persistent asthma prior to their healthcare visit. Caregivers were interviewed via telephone after the visit to assess depression, self-efficacy, and provider communication at the visit. Caregiver depression was measured using the Kessler Psychological Distress scale. We assessed caregiver self-efficacy using items from the Perceived Efficacy in Patient Physician Interactions scale; caregivers rated their confidence for each item (range 0–10). We also inquired about how well the provider communicated regarding the child’s asthma care. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used. Results We interviewed 195 caregivers (response rate 78%; 41% Black, 37% Hispanic), and 30% had depressive symptoms. Caregiver rating of provider communication did not differ by depression. Most caregivers reported high self-efficacy in their interactions with providers; however depressed caregivers had lower scores (8.7 vs. 9.4,p=.001) than non-depressed caregivers. Further, depressed caregivers were less likely to be satisfied with the visit (66% vs. 83%,p=.014), and to feel all of their needs were met (66% vs. 85%,p=.007). In multivariate analyses, depressed caregivers were >2× more likely to be unsatisfied with the visit and to have unmet needs compared to non-depressed caregivers. Conclusions Depressed caregivers of children with asthma report lower confidence in interactions with providers about asthma and are less likely to feel that their needs are met at a visit. Further study is needed to determine the best methods to communicate with and meet the needs of these caregivers.

No abstract

Background Antibiotics are prescribed to most pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients, but data evaluating indications and appropriateness of antibiotic orders in this population are lacking. Methods We performed a multicenter point prevalence study including children admitted to 10 geographically diverse PICUs over four study days in 2019. Antibiotic orders were reviewed for indication, and appropriateness was assessed using a standardized rubric. Results Of 1462 patients admitted to participating PICUs, 843 (58%) had at least one antibiotic order. A total of 1277 antibiotic orders were reviewed. Common indications were empiric therapy for suspected bacterial infections without sepsis or septic shock (260 orders, 21%), non-operative prophylaxis (164 orders, 13%), empiric therapy for sepsis or septic shock (155 orders, 12%), community acquired pneumonia (CAP) (118 orders, 9%), and post-operative prophylaxis (94 orders, 8%). Appropriateness was assessed for 985 orders for which an evidence-based rubric for appropriateness could be created. Of these, 331 (34%) were classified as inappropriate. Indications with the most orders classified as inappropriate were empiric therapy for suspected bacterial infection without sepsis or septic shock (78 orders, 24%), sepsis or septic shock (55 orders, 17%), CAP (51 orders, 15%), ventilator-associated infections (47 orders, 14%), and post-operative prophylaxis (44 orders, 14%). The proportion of antibiotics classified as inappropriate varied across institutions (range: 19%-43%). Conclusions Most PICU patients receive antibiotics, and based on our study, we estimate that one-third of antibiotic orders are inappropriate. Improved antibiotic stewardship and research focused on strategies to optimize antibiotic use in critically ill children are needed.

Technological advancements and rapid expansion in the clinical use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) across all age ranges in the last decade, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, has led to important ethical considerations. As a costly and resource intensive therapy, ECLS is used emergently under high stakes circumstances where there is often prognostic uncertainty and risk for serious complications. To develop a research agenda to further characterize and address these ethical dilemmas, a working group of specialists in ECLS, critical care, cardiothoracic surgery, palliative care, and bioethics convened at a single pediatric academic institution over the course of 18 months. Using an iterative consensus process, research questions were selected based on: (1) frequency, (2) uniqueness to ECLS, (3) urgency, (4) feasibility to study, and (5) potential to improve patient care. Questions were categorized into broad domains of societal decision-making, bedside decision-making, patient and family communication, medical team dynamics, and research design and implementation. A deeper exploration of these ethical dilemmas through formalized research and deliberation may improve equitable access and quality of ECLS-related medical care.