Repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on child and adolescent mental health: A matter of concern—A joint statement from EAP and ECPCP

COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent rigid social distancing measures implemented, including school closures, have heavily impacted children's and adolescents' psychosocial wellbeing, and their mental health problems significantly increased. However, child and adolescent mental health were already a serious problem before the Pandemic all over the world. COVID-19 is not just a pandemic, it is a syndemic and mentally or socially disadvantaged children and adolescents are the most affected. Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) and previous mental health issues are an additional worsening condition. Even though many countries have responded with decisive efforts to scale-up mental health services, a more integrated and community-based approach to mental health is required. EAP and ECPCP makes recommendations to all the stakeholders to take action to promote, protect and care for the mental health of a generation

Performance of seven different paediatric early warning scores to predict critical care admission in febrile children presenting to the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study

Objective Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS) are widely used in the UK, but the heterogeneity across tools and the limited data on their predictive performance represent obstacles to improving best practice. The standardisation of practice through the proposed National PEWS will rely on robust validation. Therefore, we compared the performance of the National PEWS with six other PEWS currently used in NHS hospitals, for their ability to predict critical care (CC) admission in febrile children attending the emergency department (ED). Design Retrospective single-centre cohort study. Setting Tertiary hospital paediatric ED. Participants A total of 11 449 eligible febrile ED attendances were identified from the electronic patient record over a 2-year period. Seven PEWS scores were calculated (Alder Hey, Bedside, Bristol, National, Newcastle and Scotland PEWS, and the Paediatric Observation Priority Score, using the worst observations recorded during their ED stay. Outcomes The primary outcome was CC admission within 48 hours, the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) >48 hours and sepsis-related mortality. Results Of 11 449 febrile children, 134 (1.2%) were admitted to CC within 48 hours of ED presentation, 606 (5.3%) had a hospital LOS >48 hours. 10 (0.09%) children died, 5 (0.04%) were sepsis-related. All seven PEWS demonstrated excellent discrimination for CC admission (range area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) 0.91–0.95) and sepsis-related mortality (range AUC 0.95–0.99), most demonstrated moderate discrimination for hospital LOS (range AUC 0.69–0.75). In CC admission threshold analyses, bedside PEWS (AUC 0.90; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.93) and National PEWS (AUC 0.90; 0.87–0.93) were the most discriminative, both at a threshold of ≥6. Conclusions Our results support the use of the proposed National PEWS in the paediatric ED for the recognition of suspected sepsis to improve outcomes, but further validation is required in other settings and presentations

Shock Index in the early assessment of febrile children at the emergency department : a prospective multicentre study

Funding Information: Funding This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 668303), by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres at Imperial College London, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newcastle University, and by NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship award (ACL-2018-21-00 to RN). Funding Information: This work was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 668303), by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centres at Imperial College London, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newcastle University, and by NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship award (ACL-2018-21-00 to RN). Publisher Copyright: ©Objective: (1) To derive reference values for the Shock Index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) based on a large emergency department (ED) population of febrile children and (2) to determine the diagnostic value of the Shock Index for serious illness in febrile children. Design/setting: Observational study in 11 European EDs (2017-2018). Patients: Febrile children with measured blood pressure. Main outcome measures: Serious bacterial infection (SBI), invasive bacterial infection (IBI), immediate life-saving interventions (ILSIs) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The association between high Shock Index (>95th centile) and each outcome was determined by logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, referral, comorbidity and temperature. Additionally, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and negative/positive likelihood ratios (LRs). Results: Of 5622 children, 461 (8.2%) had SBI, 46 (0.8%) had IBI, 203 (3.6%) were treated with ILSI and 69 (1.2%) were ICU admitted. High Shock Index was associated with SBI (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9)), ILSI (aOR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 2.9)), ICU admission (aOR 2.2 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.9)) but not with IBI (aOR: 1.5 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.4)). For the different outcomes, sensitivity for high Shock Index ranged from 0.10 to 0.15, specificity ranged from 0.95 to 0.95, negative LRs ranged from 0.90 to 0.95 and positive LRs ranged from 1.8 to 2.8. Conclusions: High Shock Index is associated with serious illness in febrile children. However, its rule-out value is insufficient which suggests that the Shock Index is not valuable as a screening tool for all febrile children at the ED.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Guideline adherence in febrile children below 3 months visiting European Emergency Departments: an observational multicenter study

Febrile children below 3 months have a higher risk of serious bacterial infections, which often leads to extensive diagnostics and treatment. There is practice variation in management due to differences in guidelines and their usage and adherence. We aimed to assess whether management in febrile children below 3 months attending European Emergency Departments (EDs) was according to the guidelines for fever. This study is part of the MOFICHE study, which is an observational multicenter study including routine data of febrile children (0-18 years) attending twelve EDs in eight European countries. In febrile children below 3 months (excluding bronchiolitis), we analyzed actual management compared to the guidelines for fever. Ten EDs applied the (adapted) NICE guideline, and two EDs applied local guidelines. Management included diagnostic tests, antibiotic treatment, and admission. We included 913 children with a median age of 1.7 months (IQR 1.0-2.3). Management per ED varied as follows: use of diagnostic tests 14-83%, antibiotic treatment 23-54%, admission 34-86%. Adherence to the guideline was 43% (374/868) for blood cultures, 29% (144/491) for lumbar punctures, 55% (270/492) for antibiotic prescriptions, and 67% (573/859) for admission. Full adherence to these four management components occurred in 15% (132/868, range 0-38%), partial adherence occurred in 56% (484/868, range 35-77%). CONCLUSION: There is large practice variation in management. The guideline adherence was limited, but highest for admission which implies a cautious approach. Future studies should focus on guideline revision including new biomarkers in order to optimize management in young febrile children. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Febrile children below 3 months have a higher risk of serious bacterial infections, which often leads to extensive diagnostics and treatment. • There is practice variation in management of young febrile children due to differences in guidelines and their usage and adherence. WHAT IS NEW: • Full guideline adherence is limited, whereas partial guideline adherence is moderate in febrile children below 3 months across Europe. • Guideline revision including new biomarkers is needed to improve management in young febrile children

Variation in antibiotic prescription rates in febrile children presenting to emergency departments across Europe (MOFICHE) : A multicentre observational study

Funding Information: This project has received funding from the European Union?s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 668303. The Research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at Imperial College London, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newcastle University. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. For the remaining authors no sources of funding were declared. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We acknowledge all research nurses for their help in collecting data, and Anda Nagle (Riga) and the Institute of Microbiology at University Medical Centre Ljubljana for their help in collecting data on antimicrobial resistance. Members of the PERFORM consortium are listed in S11 Text. Publisher Copyright: Copyright: © 2020 Hagedoorn et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background The prescription rate of antibiotics is high for febrile children visiting the emergency department (ED), contributing to antimicrobial resistance. Large studies at European EDs covering diversity in antibiotic and broad-spectrum prescriptions in all febrile children are lacking. A better understanding of variability in antibiotic prescriptions in EDs and its relation with viral or bacterial disease is essential for the development and implementation of interventions to optimise antibiotic use. As part of the PERFORM (Personalised Risk assessment in Febrile illness to Optimise Real-life Management across the European Union) project, the MOFICHE (Management and Outcome of Fever in Children in Europe) study aims to investigate variation and appropriateness of antibiotic prescription in febrile children visiting EDs in Europe. Methods and findings Between January 2017 and April 2018, data were prospectively collected on febrile children aged 0–18 years presenting to 12 EDs in 8 European countries (Austria, Germany, Greece, Latvia, the Netherlands [n = 3], Spain, Slovenia, United Kingdom [n = 3]). These EDs were based in university hospitals (n = 9) or large teaching hospitals (n = 3). Main outcomes were (1) antibiotic prescription rate; (2) the proportion of antibiotics that were broad-spectrum antibiotics; (3) the proportion of antibiotics of appropriate indication (presumed bacterial), inappropriate indication (presumed viral), or inconclusive indication (unknown bacterial/viral or other); (4) the proportion of oral antibiotics of inappropriate duration; and (5) the proportion of antibiotics that were guideline-concordant in uncomplicated urinary and upper and lower respiratory tract infections (RTIs). We determined variation of antibiotic prescription and broad-spectrum prescription by calculating standardised prescription rates using multilevel logistic regression and adjusted for general characteristics (e.g., age, sex, comorbidity, referral), disease severity (e.g., triage level, fever duration, presence of alarming signs), use and result of diagnostics, and focus and cause of infection. In this analysis of 35,650 children (median age 2.8 years, 55% male), overall antibiotic prescription rate was 31.9% (range across EDs: 22.4%–41.6%), and among those prescriptions, the broad-spectrum antibiotic prescription rate was 52.1% (range across EDs: 33.0%–90.3%). After standardisation, differences in antibiotic prescriptions ranged from 0.8 to 1.4, and the ratio between broad-spectrum and narrow-spectrum prescriptions ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 across EDs. Standardised antibiotic prescription rates varied for presumed bacterial infections (0.9 to 1.1), presumed viral infections (0.1 to 3.3), and infections of unknown cause (0.1 to 1.8). In all febrile children, antibiotic prescriptions were appropriate in 65.0% of prescriptions, inappropriate in 12.5% (range across EDs: 0.6%–29.3%), and inconclusive in 22.5% (range across EDs: 0.4%–60.8%). Prescriptions were of inappropriate duration in 20% of oral prescriptions (range across EDs: 4.4%–59.0%). Oral prescriptions were not concordant with the local guideline in 22.3% (range across EDs: 11.8%–47.3%) of prescriptions in uncomplicated RTIs and in 45.1% (range across EDs: 11.1%–100%) of prescriptions in uncomplicated urinary tract infections. A limitation of our study is that the included EDs are not representative of all febrile children attending EDs in that country. Conclusions In this study, we observed wide variation between European EDs in prescriptions of antibiotics and broad-spectrum antibiotics in febrile children. Overall, one-third of prescriptions were inappropriate or inconclusive, with marked variation between EDs. Until better diagnostics are available to accurately differentiate between bacterial and viral aetiologies, implementation of antimicrobial stewardship guidelines across Europe is necessary to limit antimicrobial resistance.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Presentations of children to emergency departments across Europe and the COVID-19 pandemic: A multinational observational study

BACKGROUND: During the initial phase of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, reduced numbers of acutely ill or injured children presented to emergency departments (EDs). Concerns were raised about the potential for delayed and more severe presentations and an increase in diagnoses such as diabetic ketoacidosis and mental health issues. This multinational observational study aimed to study the number of children presenting to EDs across Europe during the early COVID-19 pandemic and factors influencing this and to investigate changes in severity of illness and diagnoses. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Routine health data were extracted retrospectively from electronic patient records of children aged 18 years and under, presenting to 38 EDs in 16 European countries for the period January 2018 to May 2020, using predefined and standardized data domains. Observed and predicted numbers of ED attendances were calculated for the period February 2020 to May 2020. Poisson models and incidence rate ratios (IRRs), using predicted counts for each site as offset to adjust for case-mix differences, were used to compare age groups, diagnoses, and outcomes. Reductions in pediatric ED attendances, hospital admissions, and high triage urgencies were seen in all participating sites. ED attendances were relatively higher in countries with lower SARS-CoV-2 prevalence (IRR 2.26, 95% CI 1.90 to 2.70, p < 0.001) and in children aged <12 months (12 to <24 months IRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.89; 2 to <5 years IRR 0.80, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.82; 5 to <12 years IRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.70; 12 to 18 years IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.74; versus age <12 months as reference group, p < 0.001). The lowering of pediatric intensive care admissions was not as great as that of general admissions (IRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.45, p < 0.001). Lower triage urgencies were reduced more than higher triage urgencies (urgent triage IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.12; emergent and very urgent triage IRR 1.53, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.57; versus nonurgent triage category, p < 0.001). Reductions were highest and sustained throughout the study period for children with communicable infectious diseases. The main limitation was the retrospective nature of the study, using routine clinical data from a wide range of European hospitals and health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in ED attendances were seen across Europe during the first COVID-19 lockdown period. More severely ill children continued to attend hospital more frequently compared to those with minor injuries and illnesses, although absolute numbers fell. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91495258 https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN91495258