Objective Administering medication to hospitalised infants and children is a complex process at high risk of error. Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a proactive tool used to analyse risks, identify failures before they happen and prioritise remedial measures. To examine the hazards associated with the process of drug delivery to children, we performed a proactive risk-assessment analysis. Design and setting Five multidisciplinary teams, representing different divisions of the paediatric department at Padua University Hospital, were trained to analyse the drug-delivery process, to identify possible causes of failures and their potential effects, to calculate a risk priority number (RPN) for each failure and plan changes in practices. Primary outcome To identify higher-priority potential failure modes as defined by RPNs and planning changes in clinical practice to reduce the risk of patients harm and improve safety in the process of medication use in children. Results In all, 37 higher-priority potential failure modes and 71 associated causes and effects were identified. The highest RPNs related (>48) mainly to errors in calculating drug doses and concentrations. Many of these failure modes were found in all the five units, suggesting the presence of common targets for improvement, particularly in enhancing the safety of prescription and preparation of endovenous drugs. The introductions of new activities in the revised process of administering drugs allowed reducing the high-risk failure modes of 60%. Conclusions FMEA is an effective proactive risk-assessment tool useful to aid multidisciplinary groups in understanding a process care and identifying errors that may occur, prioritising remedial interventions and possibly enhancing the safety of drug delivery in children.

We aim to develop evidence-based recommendations for intensivists caring for children admitted to intensive care units and requiring analgesia and sedation. A panel of national paediatric intensivists expert in the field of analgesia and sedation and other specialists (a paediatrician, a neuropsychiatrist, a psychologist, a neurologist, a pharmacologist, an anaesthesiologist, two critical care nurses, a methodologist) started in 2018, a 2-year process. Three meetings and one electronic-based discussion were dedicated to the development of the recommendations (presentation of the project, selection of research questions, overview of text related to the research questions, discussion of recommendations). A telematic anonymous consultation was adopted to reach the final agreement on recommendations. A formal conflict-of-interest declaration was obtained from all the authors. Eight areas of direct interest and one additional topic were considered to identify the best available evidence and to develop the recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each recommendation, the level of evidence, the strength of the recommendation, the benefits, the harms and the risks, the benefit/harm balance, the intentional vagueness, the values judgement, the exclusions, the difference of the opinions, the knowledge gaps, and the research opportunities were reported. The panel produced 17 recommendations. Nine were evaluated as strong, 3 as moderate, and 5 as weak. Conclusion: a panel of national experts achieved consensus regarding recommendations for the best care in terms of analgesia and sedation in critically ill children.

To evaluate the performance of the newest version of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 score and compare it with the Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 in a multicenter national cohort of children admitted to PICU. Retrospective, prospective cohort study. Seventeen Italian PICUs. All children 0 to 15 years old admitted in PICU from January 2010 to October 2014. None. Eleven thousand one hundred nine children were enrolled in the study. The mean Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 and 3 values of 4.9 and 3.9, respectively, differed significantly (p < 0.05). Overall mortality rate was 3.9%, and the standardized mortality ratio was 0.80 for Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 and 0.98 for Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 (p < 0.05). The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curves was similar for Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 and Pediatric Index of Mortality 3. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was not significant for Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 (p = 0.21) but was highly significant for Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (p < 0.001), which overestimated death mainly in high-risk categories. Mortality indices require validation in each country where it is used. The new Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 score performed well in an Italian population. Both calibration and discrimination were appropriate, and the score more accurately predicted the mortality risk than Pediatric Index of Mortality 2.

Objectives: We sought to evaluate dexmedetomidine efficacy in assuring comfort and sparing conventional drugs when used for prolonged sedation (≥24 hr) in critically ill patients, by using validated clinical scores while systematically collecting drug dosages. We also evaluated the safety profile of dexmedetomidine and the risk factors associated with adverse events. Design: Observational prospective study. Setting: Nine tertiary-care PICUs. Patients: Patients less than 18 years who received dexmedetomidine for greater than or equal to 24 hours between January 2016 and December 2017. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: One-hundred sixty-three patients (median age, 13 mo; interquartile range, 4–71 mo) were enrolled. The main indication for dexmedetomidine use was as an adjuvant for drug-sparing (42%). Twenty-three patients (14%) received dexmedetomidine as monotherapy. Seven percent of patients received a loading dose. The median infusion duration was 108 hours (interquartile range, 60–168 hr), with dosages between 0.4 (interquartile range, 0.3–0.5) and 0.8 µg/kg/hr (interquartile range, 0.6–1.2 µg/kg/hr). At 24 hours of dexmedetomidine infusion, values of COMFORT-B Scale (n = 114), Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 (n = 43) and Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirum (n = 6) were significantly decreased compared with values registered immediately pre dexmedetomidine (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.027). Dosages/kg/hr of benzodiazepines, opioids, propofol, and ketamine were also significantly decreased (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.027). The infusion was weaned off in 85% of patients, over a median time of 36 hours (interquartile range, 12–48 hr), and abruptly discontinued in 15% of them. Thirty-seven percent of patients showed hemodynamic changes, and 9% displayed hemodynamic adverse events that required intervention (dose reduction in 79% of cases). A multivariate logistic regression model showed that a loading dose (odds ratio, 4.8; CI, 1.2–18.7) and dosages greater than 1.2 µg/kg/hr (odds ratio, 5.4; CI, 1.9–15.2) increased the odds of hemodynamic changes. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine used for prolonged sedation assures comfort, spares use of other sedation drugs, and helps to attenuate withdrawal syndrome and delirium symptoms. Adverse events are mainly hemodynamic and are reversible following dose reduction. A loading dose and higher infusion dosages are independent risk factors for hemodynamic adverse events.

We aim to formulate evidence-based recommendations to assist physicians decision-making in the assessment and management of children younger than 16 years presenting to the emergency department (ED) following a blunt head trauma with no suspicion of non-accidental injury. These guidelines were commissioned by the Italian Society of Pediatric Emergency Medicine and include a systematic review and analysis of the literature published since 2005. Physicians with expertise and experience in the fields of pediatrics, pediatric emergency medicine, pediatric intensive care, neurosurgery and neuroradiology, as well as an experienced pediatric nurse and a parent representative were the components of the guidelines working group. Areas of direct interest included 1) initial assessment and stabilization in the ED, 2) diagnosis of clinically important traumatic brain injury in the ED, 3) management and disposition in the ED. The guidelines do not provide specific guidance on the identification and management of possible associated cervical spine injuries. Other exclusions are noted in the full text. Recommendations to guide physicians practice when assessing children presenting to the ED following blunt head trauma are reported in both summary and extensive format in the guideline document.