A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Interhospital Transfer of Children in Septic Shock: A Clinician Interview Qualitative Study. | LitMetric

Interhospital Transfer of Children in Septic Shock: A Clinician Interview Qualitative Study.

J Intensive Care Med

2 Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, Division of General Pediatrics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Published: December 2018

Objective:: To determine the factors that influence the decision to transfer children in septic shock from level II to level I pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) care.

Design:: Interviews with level II PICU physicians in Michigan and Northwest Ohio. A hypothetical scenario of a 14-year-old boy in septic shock was presented.

Baseline:: 40 mL/kg fluid resuscitation, central venous and peripheral arterial access, and high-dose vasopressor infusions were provided.

Escalation Point:: After 2 hours. When the patient is in catecholamine-resistant shock and oliguric, invasive mechanical ventilation is initiated.

Measurements And Main Results:: All 19 eligible physicians participated. At baseline, respondents would assess measures of perfusion and hemodynamics: blood pressure (BP; 15 [79%]), lactate (12 [63%]), and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO; 10 [53%]). Poor clinical response was signified by low BP (11 [58%]), elevated lactate (9 [47%]), low urine output (8 [42%]), and low ScvO (6 [32%]). At the escalation point, 13 of 18 respondents felt there was <50% probability of clinical turnaround without escalating treatment, though only 3 (16%) would call to discuss transfer. Seven (37%) respondents would give more fluid, whereas 8 (42%) would use central venous pressure to guide fluid resuscitation. Ultimately, 15 (79%) respondents would transfer for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or renal replacement therapy if there was no response to escalated care. Four (21%) respondents would not transfer the patient: 1 felt appropriate care could be provided in the level II PICU, 2 felt transfer was unconventional, and 1 was unaware ECMO could be provided in refractory septic shock.

Conclusions:: Level II to level I PICU transfer of children with septic shock is triggered by perceived nonresponse to locally available therapies. Few referring physicians do not transfer children in refractory septic shock. This study provides new insight into decision-making that influences the interhospital transfer of children with septic shock.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885066616683662DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

septic shock
12
transfer children
8
children septic
8
central venous
8
interhospital transfer
4
shock
4
shock clinician
4
clinician interview
4
interview qualitative
4
qualitative study
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!