In the US, states enacted nonpharmaceutical interventions, including school closure, to reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). All 50 states closed schools in March 2020 despite uncertainty if school closure would be effective. OBJECTIVE To determine if school closure and its timing were associated with decreased COVID-19 incidence and mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS US population-based observational study conducted between March 9, 2020, and May 7, 2020, using interrupted time series analyses incorporating a lag period to allow for potential policy-associated changes to occur. To isolate the association of school closure with outcomes, state-level nonpharmaceutical interventions and attributes were included in negative binomial regression models. States were examined in quartiles based on state-level COVID-19 cumulative incidence per 100 000 residents at the time of school closure. Models were used to derive the estimated absolute differences between schools that closed and schools that remained open as well as the number of cases and deaths if states had closed schools when the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was in the lowest quartile compared with the highest quartile. EXPOSURES Closure of primary and secondary schools. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES COVID-19 daily incidence and mortality per 100 000 residents. RESULTS COVID-19 cumulative incidence in states at the time of school closure ranged from 0 to 14.75 cases per 100 000 population. School closure was associated with a significant decline in the incidence of COVID-19 (adjusted relative change per week, −62% [95% CI, −71% to −49%]) and mortality (adjusted relative change per week, −58% [95% CI, −68% to −46%]). Both of these associations were largest in states with low cumulative incidence of COVID-19 at the time of school closure. For example, states with the lowest incidence of COVID-19 had a −72% (95% CI, −79% to −62%) relative change in incidence compared with −49% (95% CI, −62% to −33%) for those states with the highest cumulative incidence. In a model derived from this analysis, it was estimated that closing schools when the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was in the lowest quartile compared with the highest quartile was associated with 128.7 fewer cases per 100 000 population over 26 days and with 1.5 fewer deaths per 100 000 population over 16 days. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Between March 9, 2020, and May 7, 2020, school closure in the US was temporally associated with decreased COVID-19 incidence and mortality; states that closed schools earlier, when cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was low, had the largest relative reduction in incidence and mortality. However, it remains possible that some of the reduction may have been related to other concurrent nonpharmaceutical interventions.

Over 4000 preventable injuries due to medication errors occur each year in any given hospital. Smart pumps have been widely introduced as one means to prevent these errors. Although smart pumps have been implemented to prevent errors, they fail to prevent specific types of errors in the medication administration process and may introduce new errors themselves. As a result, unique prevention strategies have been implemented by providers. No catalog of smart pump error types and prevention strategies currently exist. The aim of this study is to review and catalog the types of human-based errors related to smart pump use identified in the literature and to summarize the associated error prevention strategies. Literature pertaining to human-based errors associated with smart pumps was searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, and CINAHL. Studies

OBJECTIVES: Cardiorespiratory and pulse oximetry monitoring in children who are hospitalized should balance benefits of detecting deterioration with potential harms of alarm fatigue. We developed recommendations for monitoring outside the ICU on the basis of available evidence and expert opinion. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies addressing the utility of cardiorespiratory and pulse oximetry monitoring in common pediatric conditions and drafted candidate monitoring recommendations based on our findings. We convened a panel of nominees from national professional organizations with diverse expertise: nursing, medicine, respiratory therapy, biomedical engineering, and family advocacy. Using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, panelists rated recommendations for appropriateness and necessity in 3 sequential rating sessions and a moderated meeting. RESULTS:The panel evaluated 56 recommendations for intermittent and continuous monitoring for children hospitalized outside the ICU with 7 common conditions (eg, asthma, croup) and/or receiving common therapies (eg, supplemental oxygen, intravenous opioids). The panel reached agreement on the appropriateness of monitoring recommendations for 55 of 56 indications and on necessity of monitoring for 52. For mild or moderate asthma, croup, pneumonia, and bronchiolitis, the panel recommended intermittent vital sign or oximetry measurement only. The panel recommended continuous monitoring for severe disease in each respiratory condition as well as for a new or increased dose of intravenous opiate or benzodiazepine.CONCLUSIONS: Expert panel members agreed that intermittent vital sign assessment, rather than continuous monitoring, is appropriate management for a set of specific conditions of mild or moderate severity that require hospitalization.

Objective Socioeconomic hardship is common among children hospitalized for asthma but often not practically measurable. Information on where a child resides is universally available. We sought to determine the correlation between neighborhood-level socioeconomic data and family-reported hardships. Methods Caregivers of 774 children hospitalized with asthma answered questions regarding income, financial strain, and primary care access. Addresses were geocoded and linked to zip code-, census tract-, and block group-level (neighborhood) data from the U.S. Census. We then compared neighborhood median household income to family-reported household income; percentage of neighborhood residents living in poverty to family-reported financial strain; and percentage of neighborhood households without an available vehicle to family-reported access to primary care. We constructed heat maps and quantified correlations using Kendall’s rank correlation coefficient. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to assess predictive abilities of neighborhood measures. Results The cohort was 57% African American and 73% publicly-insured; 63% reported income <$30,000, 32% endorsed ≥4 financial strain measures, and 38% reported less than adequate primary care access. Neighborhood median household income was significantly and moderately correlated with and predictive of reported household income; neighborhood poverty was similarly related to financial strain; neighborhood vehicle availability was weakly correlated with and predictive of primary care access. Correlations and predictions provided by zip code measures were similar to those of census tract and block group. Conclusions Universally available neighborhood information may help efficiently identify children and families with socioeconomic hardships. Systematic screening with area-level socioeconomic measures has the potential to inform resource allocation more efficiently.

OBJECTIVES: Continuous physiologic monitors (CPMs) generate frequent alarms and are used for up to 50% of children who are hospitalized outside of the ICU. Our objective was to assess factors that influence the decision to use CPMs. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we used group-level assessment, a structured method designed to engage diverse stakeholder groups. We recruited clinicians and other staff who work on a 48-bed hospital medicine unit at a freestanding children’s hospital. We developed a list of open-ended prompts used to address CPM use on inpatient units. Demographic data were collected from each participant. We conducted 6 sessions to permit maximum participation among all groups, and themes from all sessions were merged and distilled. RESULTS: Participants (n = 78) included nurses (37%), attending physicians (17%), pediatric residents (32%), and unit staff (eg, unit coordinator; 14%). Participants identified several themes. First, there are patient factors (eg, complexity and instability) for which CPMs are useful. Second, participants perceived that alarms have negative effects on families (eg, anxiety and sleep deprivation). Third, CPMs are often used as surrogates for clinical assessments. Fourth, CPM alarms cause anxiety and fatigue for frontline staff. Fifth, the decision to use CPMs should be, but is not often, a team decision. Sixth, and finally, there are issues related to the monitor system’s setup that reduces its utility. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital medicine staff identified patient-, staff-, and system-level factors relevant to CPM use for children who were hospitalized. These data will inform the development of system-level interventions to improve CPM use and address high alarm rates.