National Survey to Describe the Current Patterns of Procedural Sedation Practices Among Pediatric Emergency Medicine Practitioners in the United States.

Objective: Pediatric procedural sedation (PPS) is used to maintain children's safety, comfort, and cooperation during emergency department procedures. Our objective was to gather data describing PPS practice across the United States to highlight the variations in practice and adherence to National Guidelines.

Methods: We performed a nationwide survey of PPS practitioners using a secure web-based software program. A link to the survey was sent to all subscribers of a pediatric emergency medicine listserv. We collected participant demographics, their PPS approach for personnel, monitoring, equipment, postsedation observation, and side effects, as well as providers' medication preferences for 3 common PPS scenarios.

Results: We received 211 completed surveys from 34 States. There were 20.6% respondents that were based in New York, 83.4% were pediatric emergency medicine attendings, and 91.7% were based in the United States teaching hospitals. Our participants learned PPS by various methods, most commonly: observation of at least 10 PPS (29.9%); self-study (24.8%); and classroom lectures (24.5%). Seventy-seven percent of our participants reported no body mass index cutoff to do PPS. There were 31.5% of our participants that observe children after PPS up to 1 hour, 30.1% up to 2 hours. There were 67.7% of the PPS providers that were a separate person from the practitioner doing the procedure, and 98.2% required a separate trained nurse to be present for monitoring. There were 92.6% of PPS providers that measure end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) during the sedation. Most PPS providers reported having no reversal agents (71.4%) and no defibrillator (65.9%) at bedside. For the abscess drainage scenario, 22% of participants preferred local anesthetic alone, and 22.5% preferred utilizing local anesthetic in combination with intravenous ketamine. For a forearm fracture reduction scenario, 62.8% of participants would choose intravenous ketamine alone. For the laceration repair scenario, the most favored drug combination was local anesthesia + intranasal midazolam by 39.8% of participants.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates a wide variability in several aspects of PPS and low adherence to national PPS guidelines.