A Surge in Pediatric Coronavirus Disease 2019 Cases: The Experience of Texas Children's Hospital From March to June 2020.

Background: An understanding of the clinical characteristics of children with coronavirus disease 2019 in diverse communities is needed to optimize the response of healthcare providers during this pandemic.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all children presenting to the Texas Children's Hospital system with testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from March 10, 2020, through June 28, 2020. Demographics were recorded for all patients undergoing testing and clinical characteristics and outcomes were recorded for children with positive tests.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Children Cared for at Texas Children's Hospital: Initial Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes.

We describe the clinical course of 57 children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cared for through a single hospital system. Most children were mildly symptomatic, and only a few patients with underlying medical conditions required hospitalization. Systemwide patient evaluation processes allowed for prompt identification and management of patients with COVID-19.

An Outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia Complex Infections Associated with Contaminated Liquid Docusate.

OBJECTIVE To investigate an outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia complex and describe the measures that revealed the source. SETTING A 629-bed, tertiary-care, pediatric hospital in Houston, Texas. PATIENTS Pediatric patients without cystic fibrosis (CF) hospitalized in the pediatric and cardiovascular intensive care units.

Tuberculosis among families of children with suspected tuberculosis and employees at a children's hospital.

Children with tuberculosis are rarely contagious, but their caregivers may be. Only 7 (12%) of 59 children were potentially contagious, and 10 (17%) were accompanied by contagious adults. Screening caregivers was more cost-effective than performing employee contact investigations, with one-sixteenth the cost ($5,470 vs $88,323) and requiring screening of 35 times fewer persons.