Preparedness and Response to Pediatric COVID-19 in European Emergency Departments: A Survey of the REPEM and PERUKI Networks - 20/11/20
and the
Country Leads
Abstract |
Study objective |
We aim to describe the variability and identify gaps in preparedness and response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in European emergency departments (EDs) caring for children.
Methods |
A cross-sectional point-prevalence survey was developed and disseminated through the pediatric emergency medicine research networks for Europe (Research in European Pediatric Emergency Medicine) and the United Kingdom and Ireland (Paediatric Emergency Research in the United Kingdom and Ireland). We aimed to include 10 EDs for countries with greater than 20 million inhabitants and 5 EDs for less populated countries, unless the number of eligible EDs was less than 5. ED directors or their delegates completed the survey between March 20 and 21 to report practice at that time. We used descriptive statistics to analyze data.
Results |
Overall, 102 centers from 18 countries (86% response rate) completed the survey: 34% did not have an ED contingency plan for pandemics and 36% had never had simulations for such events. Wide variation on personal protective equipment (PPE) items was shown for recommended PPE use at pretriage and for patient assessment, with 62% of centers experiencing shortage in one or more PPE items, most frequently FFP2 and N95 masks. Only 17% of EDs had negative-pressure isolation rooms. Coronavirus disease 2019–positive ED staff was reported in 25% of centers.
Conclusion |
We found variation and identified gaps in preparedness and response to the coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic across European referral EDs for children. A lack in early availability of a documented contingency plan, provision of simulation training, appropriate use of PPE, and appropriate isolation facilities emerged as gaps that should be optimized to improve preparedness and inform responses to future pandemics.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Please see page 789 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
Supervising editor: Jocelyn Gravel, MD. Specific detailed information about possible conflict of interest for individual editors is available at editors. |
|
Author contributions: SB and SM were responsible for conceiving the study. SB obtained and analyzed the data and wrote the initial draft of the article. DB, RF, NP, RO, LT, DR, RGN, IM, LDD, and SM critically revised the draft of the article. DB designed the draft of the survey. All authors designed the study, interpreted the data, gave final approval for publishing, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. SB takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. |
|
Readers: click on the link to go directly to a survey in which you can provide WQBYJW9 to Annals on this particular article. |
|
A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 76 - N° 6
P. 788-800 - décembre 2020 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.