Pediatrics

“I want my child to go back to school,” the mother said to me. “I just want you to tell me it will be safe.”

As the summer break winds down for children across the United States, pediatric COVID-19 cases are rising. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, nearly 94,000 cases were reported for the week ending Aug. 5, more than double the case count from 2 weeks earlier.¹

Anecdotally, some children’s hospitals are reporting an increase in pediatric COVID-19 admissions. In the hospital in which I practice, we are seeing numbers similar to those we saw in December and January: a typical daily census of 10 kids admitted with COVID-19, with 4 of them in the intensive care unit. It is a stark contrast to June when, most days, we had no patients with COVID-19 in the hospital. About half of our hospitalized patients are too young to be vaccinated against COVID-19, while the rest are unvaccinated children 12 years and older.

Vaccination of eligible children and teachers is an essential strategy for preventing the spread of COVID-19 in schools, but as children head back to school, immunization rates of educators are largely unknown and are suboptimal among students in most states. As of Aug. 11, 10.7 million U.S. children had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, representing 43% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 53% of 16- to 17-year-olds.² Rates vary substantially by state, with more than 70% of kids in Vermont receiving at least one dose of vaccine, compared with less than 25% in Wyoming and Alabama.

Still, in the absence of robust immunization rates, we have data that schools can still reopen successfully. We need to follow the science and implement universal masking, a safe, effective, and practical mitigation strategy.

It worked in Wisconsin. Seventeen K-12 schools in rural Wisconsin opened last fall for in-person instruction.³ Reported compliance with masking was high, ranging from 92.1% to 97.4%, and in-school transmission of COVID-19 was low, with seven cases among 4,876 students.

It worked in Salt Lake City.⁴ In 20 elementary schools open for in-person instruction Dec. 3, 2020, to Jan. 31, 2021, compliance with mask-wearing was high and in-school transmission was very low, despite a high community incidence of COVID-19. Notably, students’ classroom seats were less than 6 feet apart, suggesting that consistent mask-wearing works even when physical distancing is challenging.

One of the best examples of successful school reopening happened in North Carolina, where pediatricians, pediatric infectious disease specialists, and other experts affiliated with Duke University formed the ABC Science Collaborative to support school districts that requested scientific input to help guide return-to-school policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. From Oct. 26, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021, the ABC Science Collaborative worked with 13 school districts that were open for in-person instruction using basic mitigation strategies, including universal masking.⁵ During this time period, there were 4,969 community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections in the more than 100,000 students and staff present in schools. Transmission to school contacts was identified in only 209 individuals for a secondary attack rate of less than 1%.

Duke investigator Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, told Duke Today, “We know that, if our goal is to reduce transmission of COVID-19 in schools, there are two effective ways to do that: 1. vaccination, 2. masking. In the setting of schools ... the science suggests masking can be extremely effective, particularly for those who can’t get vaccinated while COVID-19 is still circulating.”

Both the AAP⁶ and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society⁷ have emphasized the importance of in-person instruction and endorsed universal masking in school. Mask-optional policies or “mask-if-you-are-unvaccinated” policies don’t work, as we have seen in society at large. They are likely to be especially challenging in school settings. Given an option, many, if not most kids, will take off their masks. Kids who leave them on run the risk of stigmatization or bullying.

On Aug. 4, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance to recommend universal indoor masking for all students, staff, teachers, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Now we’ll have to wait and see if school districts, elected officials, and parents will get on board with masks. ... and we’ll be left to count the number of rising COVID-19 cases that occur until they do.

Case in point: Kids in Greater Clark County, Ind., headed back to school on July 28. Masks were not required on school property, although unvaccinated students and teachers were “strongly encouraged” to wear them.⁸

Over the first 8 days of in-person instruction, schools in Greater Clark County identified 70 cases of COVID-19 in students and quarantined more than 1,100 of the district’s 10,300 students. Only the unvaccinated were required to quarantine. The district began requiring masks in all school buildings on Aug. 9.⁹

The worried mother had one last question for me. “What’s the best mask for a child to wear?” For most kids, a simple, well-fitting cloth mask is fine. The best mask is ultimately the mask a child will wear. A toolkit with practical tips for helping children successfully wear a mask is available on the ABC Science Collaborative website.
 

Dr. Bryant, president of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, is a pediatrician at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Children and COVID-19: State-level data report.”

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Children and COVID-19 vaccination trends.”

3. Falk A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:136-40.

4. Hershow RB et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:442-8.

5. Zimmerman KO et al. Pediatrics. 2021 Jul;e2021052686. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052686.

6. American Academy of Pediatrics. “American Academy of Pediatrics updates recommendations for opening schools in fall 2021.”

7. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. “PIDS supports universal masking for students, school staff.”

8. Courtney Hayden. WHAS11. “Greater Clark County Schools return to class July 28.”

9. Dustin Vogt. WAVE3 News. “Greater Clark Country Schools to require masks amid 70 positive cases.”

“I want my child to go back to school,” the mother said to me. “I just want you to tell me it will be safe.”

As the summer break winds down for children across the United States, pediatric COVID-19 cases are rising. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, nearly 94,000 cases were reported for the week ending Aug. 5, more than double the case count from 2 weeks earlier.¹

Anecdotally, some children’s hospitals are reporting an increase in pediatric COVID-19 admissions. In the hospital in which I practice, we are seeing numbers similar to those we saw in December and January: a typical daily census of 10 kids admitted with COVID-19, with 4 of them in the intensive care unit. It is a stark contrast to June when, most days, we had no patients with COVID-19 in the hospital. About half of our hospitalized patients are too young to be vaccinated against COVID-19, while the rest are unvaccinated children 12 years and older.

Vaccination of eligible children and teachers is an essential strategy for preventing the spread of COVID-19 in schools, but as children head back to school, immunization rates of educators are largely unknown and are suboptimal among students in most states. As of Aug. 11, 10.7 million U.S. children had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, representing 43% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 53% of 16- to 17-year-olds.² Rates vary substantially by state, with more than 70% of kids in Vermont receiving at least one dose of vaccine, compared with less than 25% in Wyoming and Alabama.

Still, in the absence of robust immunization rates, we have data that schools can still reopen successfully. We need to follow the science and implement universal masking, a safe, effective, and practical mitigation strategy.

It worked in Wisconsin. Seventeen K-12 schools in rural Wisconsin opened last fall for in-person instruction.³ Reported compliance with masking was high, ranging from 92.1% to 97.4%, and in-school transmission of COVID-19 was low, with seven cases among 4,876 students.

It worked in Salt Lake City.⁴ In 20 elementary schools open for in-person instruction Dec. 3, 2020, to Jan. 31, 2021, compliance with mask-wearing was high and in-school transmission was very low, despite a high community incidence of COVID-19. Notably, students’ classroom seats were less than 6 feet apart, suggesting that consistent mask-wearing works even when physical distancing is challenging.

One of the best examples of successful school reopening happened in North Carolina, where pediatricians, pediatric infectious disease specialists, and other experts affiliated with Duke University formed the ABC Science Collaborative to support school districts that requested scientific input to help guide return-to-school policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. From Oct. 26, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021, the ABC Science Collaborative worked with 13 school districts that were open for in-person instruction using basic mitigation strategies, including universal masking.⁵ During this time period, there were 4,969 community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections in the more than 100,000 students and staff present in schools. Transmission to school contacts was identified in only 209 individuals for a secondary attack rate of less than 1%.

Duke investigator Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, told Duke Today, “We know that, if our goal is to reduce transmission of COVID-19 in schools, there are two effective ways to do that: 1. vaccination, 2. masking. In the setting of schools ... the science suggests masking can be extremely effective, particularly for those who can’t get vaccinated while COVID-19 is still circulating.”

Both the AAP⁶ and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society⁷ have emphasized the importance of in-person instruction and endorsed universal masking in school. Mask-optional policies or “mask-if-you-are-unvaccinated” policies don’t work, as we have seen in society at large. They are likely to be especially challenging in school settings. Given an option, many, if not most kids, will take off their masks. Kids who leave them on run the risk of stigmatization or bullying.

On Aug. 4, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance to recommend universal indoor masking for all students, staff, teachers, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Now we’ll have to wait and see if school districts, elected officials, and parents will get on board with masks. ... and we’ll be left to count the number of rising COVID-19 cases that occur until they do.

Case in point: Kids in Greater Clark County, Ind., headed back to school on July 28. Masks were not required on school property, although unvaccinated students and teachers were “strongly encouraged” to wear them.⁸

Over the first 8 days of in-person instruction, schools in Greater Clark County identified 70 cases of COVID-19 in students and quarantined more than 1,100 of the district’s 10,300 students. Only the unvaccinated were required to quarantine. The district began requiring masks in all school buildings on Aug. 9.⁹

The worried mother had one last question for me. “What’s the best mask for a child to wear?” For most kids, a simple, well-fitting cloth mask is fine. The best mask is ultimately the mask a child will wear. A toolkit with practical tips for helping children successfully wear a mask is available on the ABC Science Collaborative website.
 

Dr. Bryant, president of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, is a pediatrician at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Children and COVID-19: State-level data report.”

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Children and COVID-19 vaccination trends.”

3. Falk A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:136-40.

4. Hershow RB et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:442-8.

5. Zimmerman KO et al. Pediatrics. 2021 Jul;e2021052686. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052686.

6. American Academy of Pediatrics. “American Academy of Pediatrics updates recommendations for opening schools in fall 2021.”

7. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. “PIDS supports universal masking for students, school staff.”

8. Courtney Hayden. WHAS11. “Greater Clark County Schools return to class July 28.”

9. Dustin Vogt. WAVE3 News. “Greater Clark Country Schools to require masks amid 70 positive cases.”

“I want my child to go back to school,” the mother said to me. “I just want you to tell me it will be safe.”

As the summer break winds down for children across the United States, pediatric COVID-19 cases are rising. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, nearly 94,000 cases were reported for the week ending Aug. 5, more than double the case count from 2 weeks earlier.¹

Anecdotally, some children’s hospitals are reporting an increase in pediatric COVID-19 admissions. In the hospital in which I practice, we are seeing numbers similar to those we saw in December and January: a typical daily census of 10 kids admitted with COVID-19, with 4 of them in the intensive care unit. It is a stark contrast to June when, most days, we had no patients with COVID-19 in the hospital. About half of our hospitalized patients are too young to be vaccinated against COVID-19, while the rest are unvaccinated children 12 years and older.

Vaccination of eligible children and teachers is an essential strategy for preventing the spread of COVID-19 in schools, but as children head back to school, immunization rates of educators are largely unknown and are suboptimal among students in most states. As of Aug. 11, 10.7 million U.S. children had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, representing 43% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 53% of 16- to 17-year-olds.² Rates vary substantially by state, with more than 70% of kids in Vermont receiving at least one dose of vaccine, compared with less than 25% in Wyoming and Alabama.

Still, in the absence of robust immunization rates, we have data that schools can still reopen successfully. We need to follow the science and implement universal masking, a safe, effective, and practical mitigation strategy.

It worked in Wisconsin. Seventeen K-12 schools in rural Wisconsin opened last fall for in-person instruction.³ Reported compliance with masking was high, ranging from 92.1% to 97.4%, and in-school transmission of COVID-19 was low, with seven cases among 4,876 students.

It worked in Salt Lake City.⁴ In 20 elementary schools open for in-person instruction Dec. 3, 2020, to Jan. 31, 2021, compliance with mask-wearing was high and in-school transmission was very low, despite a high community incidence of COVID-19. Notably, students’ classroom seats were less than 6 feet apart, suggesting that consistent mask-wearing works even when physical distancing is challenging.

One of the best examples of successful school reopening happened in North Carolina, where pediatricians, pediatric infectious disease specialists, and other experts affiliated with Duke University formed the ABC Science Collaborative to support school districts that requested scientific input to help guide return-to-school policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. From Oct. 26, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021, the ABC Science Collaborative worked with 13 school districts that were open for in-person instruction using basic mitigation strategies, including universal masking.⁵ During this time period, there were 4,969 community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections in the more than 100,000 students and staff present in schools. Transmission to school contacts was identified in only 209 individuals for a secondary attack rate of less than 1%.

Duke investigator Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, told Duke Today, “We know that, if our goal is to reduce transmission of COVID-19 in schools, there are two effective ways to do that: 1. vaccination, 2. masking. In the setting of schools ... the science suggests masking can be extremely effective, particularly for those who can’t get vaccinated while COVID-19 is still circulating.”

Both the AAP⁶ and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society⁷ have emphasized the importance of in-person instruction and endorsed universal masking in school. Mask-optional policies or “mask-if-you-are-unvaccinated” policies don’t work, as we have seen in society at large. They are likely to be especially challenging in school settings. Given an option, many, if not most kids, will take off their masks. Kids who leave them on run the risk of stigmatization or bullying.

On Aug. 4, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance to recommend universal indoor masking for all students, staff, teachers, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Now we’ll have to wait and see if school districts, elected officials, and parents will get on board with masks. ... and we’ll be left to count the number of rising COVID-19 cases that occur until they do.

Case in point: Kids in Greater Clark County, Ind., headed back to school on July 28. Masks were not required on school property, although unvaccinated students and teachers were “strongly encouraged” to wear them.⁸

Over the first 8 days of in-person instruction, schools in Greater Clark County identified 70 cases of COVID-19 in students and quarantined more than 1,100 of the district’s 10,300 students. Only the unvaccinated were required to quarantine. The district began requiring masks in all school buildings on Aug. 9.⁹

The worried mother had one last question for me. “What’s the best mask for a child to wear?” For most kids, a simple, well-fitting cloth mask is fine. The best mask is ultimately the mask a child will wear. A toolkit with practical tips for helping children successfully wear a mask is available on the ABC Science Collaborative website.
 

Dr. Bryant, president of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, is a pediatrician at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Children and COVID-19: State-level data report.”

2. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Children and COVID-19 vaccination trends.”

3. Falk A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:136-40.

4. Hershow RB et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:442-8.

5. Zimmerman KO et al. Pediatrics. 2021 Jul;e2021052686. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-052686.

6. American Academy of Pediatrics. “American Academy of Pediatrics updates recommendations for opening schools in fall 2021.”

7. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. “PIDS supports universal masking for students, school staff.”

8. Courtney Hayden. WHAS11. “Greater Clark County Schools return to class July 28.”

9. Dustin Vogt. WAVE3 News. “Greater Clark Country Schools to require masks amid 70 positive cases.”

Case vignette: Laura is a 14-year-old biological girl who presents to your office for a routine well-child visit. She is doing well medically but notes that over the past 3 months she has been having increasing thoughts of suicide and has self-harmed via cutting on her wrists with a blade removed from a shaving razor. You contemplate what the most salient questions are in order to determine the best disposition for your patient.

The case vignette above may sound like one that you have heard before, and if not, you undoubtedly will encounter such a situation moving forward. The rate of suicidal ideation amongst youth ages 10-24 has increased by 57.4% between 2007 and 2018.¹ Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death in those aged 10 through young adulthood.² According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 18.8% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 8.9% actually attempted suicide, with 2.5% having a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse during the 12 months before the survey.³ Children often present first to their primary care provider, and they may be the first individual who the child shares their suicidal or self-harm thoughts with. It may be useful to have a standardized approach, while using your own clinical judgment, to determine best next steps. Given the significant recent surge in children presenting to the emergency department for psychiatric needs and that environment having its own limitations (for example, long wait times, nontherapeutic space, etc.), a simple screen and brief assessment may lead to being able to maintain a patient safely outside of the hospital.
 

Screen all appropriate patients for suicide

There are, at minimum, three validated screening tools that can be used as to determine what the best next step should be. They include the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the PHQ-9 (modified for adolescents). We can highlight one of the screening tools here as noted below, but the choice of screener may be based on facility and/or clinician preference.

The Ask Suicide-Screening Questions

The ASQ, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, include the following four binary questions plus a fifth acuity question, as follows:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?

2. In the past few weeks, have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?

3. In the past week, have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

a. If yes, how?

b. When?

The following acuity question is to be asked if any of the above are answered “yes”:

5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?

a. If yes, please describe.
 

Assess the level of risk

Once you have screened a patient, you need to assess the level of risk to help determine the level of care required. Returning to our original case vignette, does the patient warrant outpatient management, crisis evaluation, or an emergency psychiatric evaluation? You may have already decided that the patient needs an emergency mental health evaluation from a local crisis clinician evaluation and/or the emergency department. However, you may also find that the screen did not elicit imminent concern, but it does warrant a brief assessment to further elucidate the level of risk and proper disposition. One such instrument that may be helpful is the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) – also developed by the NIMH as a tool linked to the ASQ. There are clear and specific instructions in the BSSA with suggestions on how to ask questions. Important components to the BSSA include:

• A focus on a more thorough clinical history – including frequency of suicidal ideation, suicide plan, past behavior, associated symptoms, and social support/stressors
• Collateral information (e.g., further details from those who know the patient such as family/friends).
• Safety planning.
• Determining disposition.

The BSSA may suggest that a crisis/psychiatric evaluation is warranted or suggest that a safety plan with a mental health referral will likely be sufficient.
 

Triage and safety planning

A safety plan should be created if you determine that a patient can be safely maintained as an outpatient based on your screening, assessment, and triaging. Traditional safety plans come in many different forms and can be found online (Example of a Safety Plan Template). However, most safety plans include some version of the following:

• Increased supervision: 24/7 supervision with doors open/unlocked.
• Reduced access: medications (prescription and OTC) locked away; sharps and firearms secured.
• Adaptive coping strategies (e.g., relaxation techniques such as drawing or listening to music).
• Reliable persons for support (e.g., parent, therapist, school counselor).
• Outpatient mental health provider follow-up and/or referral.
• Provision of local crisis and national hotline contact information.
• Use of a safety plan phone app completed with patient.

Envision a safety plan as a living document that evolves, grows, and changes with your patient/family – one that can be easily reviewed/updated at each visit.
 

Returning to our case vignette

Laura returns to your office for a follow-up after a 10-day stay at a hospital-diversion program or inpatient psychiatric unit. The decision is made to use the primary care NIMH ASQ/BSSA algorithm, and you determine the patient to not be at imminent risk following the screen and assessment. Laura is triaged as appropriate for outpatient care, you collaborate to update the safety plan, regular follow-ups are scheduled, and a mental health referral has been placed. Thus, there are tools to assist with screening, assessing, and triaging pediatric patients with suicidal ideation that provide the patient with appropriate care and treatment and may help alleviate the need to have a patient present to the emergency department.

Dr. Abdul-Karim is a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont University Children’s Hospital in Burlington.

Additional resources

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has developed information that can be provided to families about suicide safety precautions that can be taken at home, which can be found here: Facts for Families. Suicide Safety: Precautions at Home.

Screening tools listed above can be found here:

ASQ Toolkit.

C-SSRS.

PHQ-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

References

1. Curtin SC. National Center for Health Statistics. “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018” National Vital Statistics Reports..

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Underlying Cause of Death 2018-2019” CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed 2021 Jul 31, 6:57:39 p.m.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991-2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

Case vignette: Laura is a 14-year-old biological girl who presents to your office for a routine well-child visit. She is doing well medically but notes that over the past 3 months she has been having increasing thoughts of suicide and has self-harmed via cutting on her wrists with a blade removed from a shaving razor. You contemplate what the most salient questions are in order to determine the best disposition for your patient.

The case vignette above may sound like one that you have heard before, and if not, you undoubtedly will encounter such a situation moving forward. The rate of suicidal ideation amongst youth ages 10-24 has increased by 57.4% between 2007 and 2018.¹ Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death in those aged 10 through young adulthood.² According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 18.8% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 8.9% actually attempted suicide, with 2.5% having a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse during the 12 months before the survey.³ Children often present first to their primary care provider, and they may be the first individual who the child shares their suicidal or self-harm thoughts with. It may be useful to have a standardized approach, while using your own clinical judgment, to determine best next steps. Given the significant recent surge in children presenting to the emergency department for psychiatric needs and that environment having its own limitations (for example, long wait times, nontherapeutic space, etc.), a simple screen and brief assessment may lead to being able to maintain a patient safely outside of the hospital.
 

Screen all appropriate patients for suicide

There are, at minimum, three validated screening tools that can be used as to determine what the best next step should be. They include the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the PHQ-9 (modified for adolescents). We can highlight one of the screening tools here as noted below, but the choice of screener may be based on facility and/or clinician preference.

The Ask Suicide-Screening Questions

The ASQ, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, include the following four binary questions plus a fifth acuity question, as follows:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?

2. In the past few weeks, have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?

3. In the past week, have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

a. If yes, how?

b. When?

The following acuity question is to be asked if any of the above are answered “yes”:

5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?

a. If yes, please describe.
 

Assess the level of risk

Once you have screened a patient, you need to assess the level of risk to help determine the level of care required. Returning to our original case vignette, does the patient warrant outpatient management, crisis evaluation, or an emergency psychiatric evaluation? You may have already decided that the patient needs an emergency mental health evaluation from a local crisis clinician evaluation and/or the emergency department. However, you may also find that the screen did not elicit imminent concern, but it does warrant a brief assessment to further elucidate the level of risk and proper disposition. One such instrument that may be helpful is the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) – also developed by the NIMH as a tool linked to the ASQ. There are clear and specific instructions in the BSSA with suggestions on how to ask questions. Important components to the BSSA include:

• A focus on a more thorough clinical history – including frequency of suicidal ideation, suicide plan, past behavior, associated symptoms, and social support/stressors
• Collateral information (e.g., further details from those who know the patient such as family/friends).
• Safety planning.
• Determining disposition.

The BSSA may suggest that a crisis/psychiatric evaluation is warranted or suggest that a safety plan with a mental health referral will likely be sufficient.
 

Triage and safety planning

A safety plan should be created if you determine that a patient can be safely maintained as an outpatient based on your screening, assessment, and triaging. Traditional safety plans come in many different forms and can be found online (Example of a Safety Plan Template). However, most safety plans include some version of the following:

• Increased supervision: 24/7 supervision with doors open/unlocked.
• Reduced access: medications (prescription and OTC) locked away; sharps and firearms secured.
• Adaptive coping strategies (e.g., relaxation techniques such as drawing or listening to music).
• Reliable persons for support (e.g., parent, therapist, school counselor).
• Outpatient mental health provider follow-up and/or referral.
• Provision of local crisis and national hotline contact information.
• Use of a safety plan phone app completed with patient.

Envision a safety plan as a living document that evolves, grows, and changes with your patient/family – one that can be easily reviewed/updated at each visit.
 

Returning to our case vignette

Laura returns to your office for a follow-up after a 10-day stay at a hospital-diversion program or inpatient psychiatric unit. The decision is made to use the primary care NIMH ASQ/BSSA algorithm, and you determine the patient to not be at imminent risk following the screen and assessment. Laura is triaged as appropriate for outpatient care, you collaborate to update the safety plan, regular follow-ups are scheduled, and a mental health referral has been placed. Thus, there are tools to assist with screening, assessing, and triaging pediatric patients with suicidal ideation that provide the patient with appropriate care and treatment and may help alleviate the need to have a patient present to the emergency department.

Dr. Abdul-Karim is a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont University Children’s Hospital in Burlington.

Additional resources

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has developed information that can be provided to families about suicide safety precautions that can be taken at home, which can be found here: Facts for Families. Suicide Safety: Precautions at Home.

Screening tools listed above can be found here:

ASQ Toolkit.

C-SSRS.

PHQ-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

References

1. Curtin SC. National Center for Health Statistics. “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018” National Vital Statistics Reports..

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Underlying Cause of Death 2018-2019” CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed 2021 Jul 31, 6:57:39 p.m.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991-2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

Case vignette: Laura is a 14-year-old biological girl who presents to your office for a routine well-child visit. She is doing well medically but notes that over the past 3 months she has been having increasing thoughts of suicide and has self-harmed via cutting on her wrists with a blade removed from a shaving razor. You contemplate what the most salient questions are in order to determine the best disposition for your patient.

The case vignette above may sound like one that you have heard before, and if not, you undoubtedly will encounter such a situation moving forward. The rate of suicidal ideation amongst youth ages 10-24 has increased by 57.4% between 2007 and 2018.¹ Furthermore, suicide is the second leading cause of death in those aged 10 through young adulthood.² According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 18.8% of high school students seriously considered attempting suicide, 15.7% made a plan about how they would attempt suicide, and 8.9% actually attempted suicide, with 2.5% having a suicide attempt that resulted in an injury, poisoning, or overdose that had to be treated by a doctor or nurse during the 12 months before the survey.³ Children often present first to their primary care provider, and they may be the first individual who the child shares their suicidal or self-harm thoughts with. It may be useful to have a standardized approach, while using your own clinical judgment, to determine best next steps. Given the significant recent surge in children presenting to the emergency department for psychiatric needs and that environment having its own limitations (for example, long wait times, nontherapeutic space, etc.), a simple screen and brief assessment may lead to being able to maintain a patient safely outside of the hospital.
 

Screen all appropriate patients for suicide

There are, at minimum, three validated screening tools that can be used as to determine what the best next step should be. They include the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS), and the PHQ-9 (modified for adolescents). We can highlight one of the screening tools here as noted below, but the choice of screener may be based on facility and/or clinician preference.

The Ask Suicide-Screening Questions

The ASQ, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health, include the following four binary questions plus a fifth acuity question, as follows:

1. In the past few weeks, have you wished you were dead?

2. In the past few weeks, have you felt that you or your family would be better off if you were dead?

3. In the past week, have you been having thoughts about killing yourself?

4. Have you ever tried to kill yourself?

a. If yes, how?

b. When?

The following acuity question is to be asked if any of the above are answered “yes”:

5. Are you having thoughts of killing yourself right now?

a. If yes, please describe.
 

Assess the level of risk

Once you have screened a patient, you need to assess the level of risk to help determine the level of care required. Returning to our original case vignette, does the patient warrant outpatient management, crisis evaluation, or an emergency psychiatric evaluation? You may have already decided that the patient needs an emergency mental health evaluation from a local crisis clinician evaluation and/or the emergency department. However, you may also find that the screen did not elicit imminent concern, but it does warrant a brief assessment to further elucidate the level of risk and proper disposition. One such instrument that may be helpful is the Brief Suicide Safety Assessment (BSSA) – also developed by the NIMH as a tool linked to the ASQ. There are clear and specific instructions in the BSSA with suggestions on how to ask questions. Important components to the BSSA include:

• A focus on a more thorough clinical history – including frequency of suicidal ideation, suicide plan, past behavior, associated symptoms, and social support/stressors
• Collateral information (e.g., further details from those who know the patient such as family/friends).
• Safety planning.
• Determining disposition.

The BSSA may suggest that a crisis/psychiatric evaluation is warranted or suggest that a safety plan with a mental health referral will likely be sufficient.
 

Triage and safety planning

A safety plan should be created if you determine that a patient can be safely maintained as an outpatient based on your screening, assessment, and triaging. Traditional safety plans come in many different forms and can be found online (Example of a Safety Plan Template). However, most safety plans include some version of the following:

• Increased supervision: 24/7 supervision with doors open/unlocked.
• Reduced access: medications (prescription and OTC) locked away; sharps and firearms secured.
• Adaptive coping strategies (e.g., relaxation techniques such as drawing or listening to music).
• Reliable persons for support (e.g., parent, therapist, school counselor).
• Outpatient mental health provider follow-up and/or referral.
• Provision of local crisis and national hotline contact information.
• Use of a safety plan phone app completed with patient.

Envision a safety plan as a living document that evolves, grows, and changes with your patient/family – one that can be easily reviewed/updated at each visit.
 

Returning to our case vignette

Laura returns to your office for a follow-up after a 10-day stay at a hospital-diversion program or inpatient psychiatric unit. The decision is made to use the primary care NIMH ASQ/BSSA algorithm, and you determine the patient to not be at imminent risk following the screen and assessment. Laura is triaged as appropriate for outpatient care, you collaborate to update the safety plan, regular follow-ups are scheduled, and a mental health referral has been placed. Thus, there are tools to assist with screening, assessing, and triaging pediatric patients with suicidal ideation that provide the patient with appropriate care and treatment and may help alleviate the need to have a patient present to the emergency department.

Dr. Abdul-Karim is a child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont University Children’s Hospital in Burlington.

Additional resources

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has developed information that can be provided to families about suicide safety precautions that can be taken at home, which can be found here: Facts for Families. Suicide Safety: Precautions at Home.

Screening tools listed above can be found here:

ASQ Toolkit.

C-SSRS.

PHQ-9 Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-A).

References

1. Curtin SC. National Center for Health Statistics. “State Suicide Rates Among Adolescents and Young Adults Aged 10-24: United States, 2000-2018” National Vital Statistics Reports..

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Underlying Cause of Death 2018-2019” CDC WONDER Online Database. Accessed 2021 Jul 31, 6:57:39 p.m.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991-2019 High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data.

The breast milk of women who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contained specific antibodies against the infectious disease, new research found.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions among individuals who are breastfeeding, both because of the possibility of viral transmission to infants during breastfeeding and, more recently, of the potential risks and benefits of vaccination in this specific population,” researchers wrote.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and most recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommended that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 11 in JAMA Network Open, adds to a growing collection of research that has found COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of women who were vaccinated against or have been infected with the illness.

Study author Erika Esteve-Palau, MD, PhD, and her colleagues collected blood and milk samples from 33 people who were on average 37 years old and who were on average 17.5 months post partum to examine the correlation of the levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (S1 subunit) and against the nucleocapsid (NC) of SARS-CoV-2.

Blood and milk samples were taken from each study participant at three time points – 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 4 weeks after the second dose. No participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination or during the study period.

Researchers found that, after the second dose of the vaccine, IgG(S1) levels in breast milk increased and were positively associated with corresponding levels in the blood samples. The median range of IgG(S1) levels for serum-milk pairs at each time point were 519 to 1 arbitrary units (AU) per mL 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 8,644 to 78 AU/mL 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 12,478 to 50.4 AU/mL 4 weeks after receiving the second dose.

Lisette D. Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings as previous studies have shown the passage of antibodies in breast milk in vaccinated women. One 2021 study published in JAMA found SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk for 6 weeks after vaccination. IgA secretion was evident as early as 2 weeks after vaccination followed by a spike in IgG after 4 weeks (a week after the second vaccine). Meanwhile, another 2021 study published in mBio found that breast milk produced by parents with COVID-19 is a source of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies and can neutralize COVID-19 activity.

“While the data from this and other studies is promising in regards to the passage of antibodies, it is currently unclear what the long-term effects for children will be,” said Dr. Tanner of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is not yet known what level of antibodies is necessary to convey protection to either neonates or children. This is an active area of investigation at multiple institutions.”

Dr. Tanner said she wished the study “evaluated neonatal cord blood or serum levels to better understand the immune response mounted by the children of women who received vaccination.”

Researchers of the current study said larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals who are breastfeeding and further assess the association of vaccination with infants’ health and SARS-CoV-2–specific immunity.

Dr. Palau and Dr. Tanner had no relevant financial disclosures.

The breast milk of women who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contained specific antibodies against the infectious disease, new research found.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions among individuals who are breastfeeding, both because of the possibility of viral transmission to infants during breastfeeding and, more recently, of the potential risks and benefits of vaccination in this specific population,” researchers wrote.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and most recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommended that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 11 in JAMA Network Open, adds to a growing collection of research that has found COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of women who were vaccinated against or have been infected with the illness.

Study author Erika Esteve-Palau, MD, PhD, and her colleagues collected blood and milk samples from 33 people who were on average 37 years old and who were on average 17.5 months post partum to examine the correlation of the levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (S1 subunit) and against the nucleocapsid (NC) of SARS-CoV-2.

Blood and milk samples were taken from each study participant at three time points – 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 4 weeks after the second dose. No participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination or during the study period.

Researchers found that, after the second dose of the vaccine, IgG(S1) levels in breast milk increased and were positively associated with corresponding levels in the blood samples. The median range of IgG(S1) levels for serum-milk pairs at each time point were 519 to 1 arbitrary units (AU) per mL 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 8,644 to 78 AU/mL 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 12,478 to 50.4 AU/mL 4 weeks after receiving the second dose.

Lisette D. Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings as previous studies have shown the passage of antibodies in breast milk in vaccinated women. One 2021 study published in JAMA found SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk for 6 weeks after vaccination. IgA secretion was evident as early as 2 weeks after vaccination followed by a spike in IgG after 4 weeks (a week after the second vaccine). Meanwhile, another 2021 study published in mBio found that breast milk produced by parents with COVID-19 is a source of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies and can neutralize COVID-19 activity.

“While the data from this and other studies is promising in regards to the passage of antibodies, it is currently unclear what the long-term effects for children will be,” said Dr. Tanner of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is not yet known what level of antibodies is necessary to convey protection to either neonates or children. This is an active area of investigation at multiple institutions.”

Dr. Tanner said she wished the study “evaluated neonatal cord blood or serum levels to better understand the immune response mounted by the children of women who received vaccination.”

Researchers of the current study said larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals who are breastfeeding and further assess the association of vaccination with infants’ health and SARS-CoV-2–specific immunity.

Dr. Palau and Dr. Tanner had no relevant financial disclosures.

The breast milk of women who had received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine contained specific antibodies against the infectious disease, new research found.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions among individuals who are breastfeeding, both because of the possibility of viral transmission to infants during breastfeeding and, more recently, of the potential risks and benefits of vaccination in this specific population,” researchers wrote.

In August, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and most recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommended that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

The study, published Aug. 11 in JAMA Network Open, adds to a growing collection of research that has found COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of women who were vaccinated against or have been infected with the illness.

Study author Erika Esteve-Palau, MD, PhD, and her colleagues collected blood and milk samples from 33 people who were on average 37 years old and who were on average 17.5 months post partum to examine the correlation of the levels of immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (S1 subunit) and against the nucleocapsid (NC) of SARS-CoV-2.

Blood and milk samples were taken from each study participant at three time points – 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 4 weeks after the second dose. No participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination or during the study period.

Researchers found that, after the second dose of the vaccine, IgG(S1) levels in breast milk increased and were positively associated with corresponding levels in the blood samples. The median range of IgG(S1) levels for serum-milk pairs at each time point were 519 to 1 arbitrary units (AU) per mL 2 weeks after receiving the first dose of the vaccine, 8,644 to 78 AU/mL 2 weeks after receiving the second dose, and 12,478 to 50.4 AU/mL 4 weeks after receiving the second dose.

Lisette D. Tanner, MD, MPH, FACOG, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings as previous studies have shown the passage of antibodies in breast milk in vaccinated women. One 2021 study published in JAMA found SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA and IgG antibodies in breast milk for 6 weeks after vaccination. IgA secretion was evident as early as 2 weeks after vaccination followed by a spike in IgG after 4 weeks (a week after the second vaccine). Meanwhile, another 2021 study published in mBio found that breast milk produced by parents with COVID-19 is a source of SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies and can neutralize COVID-19 activity.

“While the data from this and other studies is promising in regards to the passage of antibodies, it is currently unclear what the long-term effects for children will be,” said Dr. Tanner of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “It is not yet known what level of antibodies is necessary to convey protection to either neonates or children. This is an active area of investigation at multiple institutions.”

Dr. Tanner said she wished the study “evaluated neonatal cord blood or serum levels to better understand the immune response mounted by the children of women who received vaccination.”

Researchers of the current study said larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in individuals who are breastfeeding and further assess the association of vaccination with infants’ health and SARS-CoV-2–specific immunity.

Dr. Palau and Dr. Tanner had no relevant financial disclosures.

Wishful thinking. “Repeated involuntary passage of stool in the underwear after the acquisition of toileting skills (typically > 4 years of age) in the absence of overt neuromuscular anorectal dysfunction,” formerly called encopresis, certainly still exists, renamed functional fecal incontinence (FFI). You have surely cared for many children with FFI over the years, mostly the 80% retentive (constipated) type but newer information may make your management more successful!

The first step in managing FFI is detecting it. This may seem easy as we get a whiff of its presence, even if the child and parents are unaware because of habituation to the odor. Children lose sensation from rectal dilation by the stool mass and become unaware of leakage. But they also are ashamed of and deny “accidents,” hide soiled underwear, and keep distance from parents and peers. Our physical exam may reveal an abdominal mass or perianal stool. While there, check the anal wink, anus placement, lower spine integrity, and ankle reflexes for rare neurological causes. A rectal exam is not required if the story fits but, if not, may show a dilated rectal vault and hard mass. Blood work, x-ray, ultrasound, barium enemas, or manometry are rarely indicated.

Instead of counting on expressed concern, we should routinely ask children about large, painful, or infrequent poops. There are even Rome IV criteria for constipation – at least two of the following without organic pathology and with duration of at least 1 month: less than 2 defecations/week, a history of hard or painful stools, retentive posturing or excessive stool retention, large stools blocking the toilet, large rectal fecal mass, or at least 1 episode of incontinence/week. Our history should request this but parents are often unaware of their child’s patterns except for that blocked toilet!

Other actionable history includes struggles over toilet training, early anal fissure or painful stools, a history of “straining”, crying, or crossing legs (attempts to withhold), short stature and/or diarrhea (possible celiac disease), abdominal pain, poor appetite, or a diet high in milk products or low in fiber. Family history may suggest rare organic causes such as hypothyroidism, Hirschsprung disease, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, or celiac disease, but also constipation (in 55%). After the newborn period (imperforate anus or meconium ileus), 95% of constipation is functional.

While constipation has a worldwide prevalence of 9.5%, low exercise and low-fiber diet are particularly American. Low total food intake as a cause is uncommon in the United States but another reason to screen for food insecurity.

Patterns of behavior can predispose to constipation and FFI. For the child, oppositionality, social anxiety, depression, or eating disorders may interfere with sufficient stool frequency and relaxation needed to fully evacuate at home, daycare, or school. Query every child with ADHD about stool patterns as inattention to urge plus impatience with completing defection (and ODD) are common disorders leading to FFI. Parents who are overly demanding, intrusive, rushing, irritable, anxious, or obsessive may also make routine toileting stressful. When caregivers are neglectful, fail to maintain routines for eating, or ignore dirty diapers, toilet training is more likely to fail and constipation ensue.

Clean out and maintenance using medication are needed for FFI, but child and family behavior change are also critical; the combination has proven more successful. Both the child and parents need clear a explanation of how constipation develops from withholding, regardless of the reason (pain, anxiety, conflict, diet), leading to larger stools more difficult to pass as water is absorbed in the colon. The large mass stretches the bowel so that sensation and strength for motility is impaired and softer stool leaks by and out the rectum unbeknownst to the child. I find drawing “the rock of poop” in a dilated thin walled colon with nerves sparse and “liquid stool sneaking by” compared to a “muscular” colon with soft poop animates and objectifies this explanation. Making it clear that leaking is involuntary is key to having the parent and child directly forgive each other for prior anger, blaming, sneaking, or punishment. While the school-aged child needs to be in charge of toileting, resolving the conflict is essential.

The critical next step is cleaning out “the rocks,” which should only rarely be omitted. Polyethylene glycol (PEG, for example, Miralax) has the best evidence, tastes better (without electrolytes), and dosing 1-1.5 g/kg per day premixed in 10 mL/kg fluid of the child’s choice kept cold and swallowed within 30 minutes daily for 3-6 days until feces have no more chunks. This process disimpacts 95% of the time. Reassure parents of the long-term safety despite the warning on the label that it is intended for adult users. Lactulose or sorbitol (1 mL/kg, once or twice daily), magnesium hydroxide, bisacodyl, or senna are long second choices. Only if these fail should mineral oil 15-30 mL per year of age, up to 240 mL per day be used and then not in infants or if there is aspiration risk. While enemas (mineral oil, sodium phosphate, or saline) and p.o. PEG are equally effective, enemas are very intrusive and unnecessary. There is insufficient evidence for probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics.

It is crucial to be honest with the child and parents that clean out can be uncomfortable as cramping or leaking may occur. Thus, starting PEG after school on Friday and being prepared to stay home Monday (if rocks are still emerging) may be needed to avoid accidents.

After clean out, maintenance using daily PEG 0.4-0.8 g/kg per day (best) or lactulose needs to be continued for 2-6 or even 12 months to prevent relapse as the bowel recovers. Bowels need to produce 1-2 soft stools per day for 1 month before considering weaning off PEG. High-fiber (age of child plus 5-10 g/day) diet perpetually is more acceptable if we suggest Frosted Mini-Wheats, Fig Newtons, cookies or muffins baked with wheat bran, popcorn, or fruits with “p” in the name (for example, prunes, pears, apricots), Raisin Bran, or methylcellulose in juice or Popsicles, wafers (with jelly or frosting), or tablets. Infant diet can include brown sugar, or prune/apple/pear juice (Karo is no longer reliably osmotic). Diet needs to include 32-64 ounces of nonmilk fluids, although this will not serve as treatment alone. Limit cow milk to 16 oz. or consider eliminating it entirely if other treatments fail as cow milk is constipating.

Maintenance also requires coaching the child to commence “exercises” to “strengthen the bowel.” These consist of sitting with feet supported to elevate at the hip for 10 minutes by a timer after meals 2-3 times per day and pushing. Entertainment such as music, books, small toys, or a noncompetitive video game and/or rewards of cash, tokens, or treats may lighten the routine. These “exercises” need to be continued indefinitely and monitored with a stool diary. Monthly check-ins are essential to adherence and success, especially in the first 3-4 months, to address any relapses.

While constipation has consequences besides FFI: physical (abdominal pain, anal fissure, rectal prolapse, enuresis, UTI, vesicoureteral reflux, and upper urinary tract dilatation, poor appetite, or poor growth), emotional problems (lability, depression, anxiety, aggression, and low self-esteem), social problems (peer humiliation, teasing, rejection, parent upset, anger, shaming, and punishment), and school absence, we can be supportive and effective coaches for this chronic condition.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Wishful thinking. “Repeated involuntary passage of stool in the underwear after the acquisition of toileting skills (typically > 4 years of age) in the absence of overt neuromuscular anorectal dysfunction,” formerly called encopresis, certainly still exists, renamed functional fecal incontinence (FFI). You have surely cared for many children with FFI over the years, mostly the 80% retentive (constipated) type but newer information may make your management more successful!

The first step in managing FFI is detecting it. This may seem easy as we get a whiff of its presence, even if the child and parents are unaware because of habituation to the odor. Children lose sensation from rectal dilation by the stool mass and become unaware of leakage. But they also are ashamed of and deny “accidents,” hide soiled underwear, and keep distance from parents and peers. Our physical exam may reveal an abdominal mass or perianal stool. While there, check the anal wink, anus placement, lower spine integrity, and ankle reflexes for rare neurological causes. A rectal exam is not required if the story fits but, if not, may show a dilated rectal vault and hard mass. Blood work, x-ray, ultrasound, barium enemas, or manometry are rarely indicated.

Instead of counting on expressed concern, we should routinely ask children about large, painful, or infrequent poops. There are even Rome IV criteria for constipation – at least two of the following without organic pathology and with duration of at least 1 month: less than 2 defecations/week, a history of hard or painful stools, retentive posturing or excessive stool retention, large stools blocking the toilet, large rectal fecal mass, or at least 1 episode of incontinence/week. Our history should request this but parents are often unaware of their child’s patterns except for that blocked toilet!

Other actionable history includes struggles over toilet training, early anal fissure or painful stools, a history of “straining”, crying, or crossing legs (attempts to withhold), short stature and/or diarrhea (possible celiac disease), abdominal pain, poor appetite, or a diet high in milk products or low in fiber. Family history may suggest rare organic causes such as hypothyroidism, Hirschsprung disease, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, or celiac disease, but also constipation (in 55%). After the newborn period (imperforate anus or meconium ileus), 95% of constipation is functional.

While constipation has a worldwide prevalence of 9.5%, low exercise and low-fiber diet are particularly American. Low total food intake as a cause is uncommon in the United States but another reason to screen for food insecurity.

Patterns of behavior can predispose to constipation and FFI. For the child, oppositionality, social anxiety, depression, or eating disorders may interfere with sufficient stool frequency and relaxation needed to fully evacuate at home, daycare, or school. Query every child with ADHD about stool patterns as inattention to urge plus impatience with completing defection (and ODD) are common disorders leading to FFI. Parents who are overly demanding, intrusive, rushing, irritable, anxious, or obsessive may also make routine toileting stressful. When caregivers are neglectful, fail to maintain routines for eating, or ignore dirty diapers, toilet training is more likely to fail and constipation ensue.

Clean out and maintenance using medication are needed for FFI, but child and family behavior change are also critical; the combination has proven more successful. Both the child and parents need clear a explanation of how constipation develops from withholding, regardless of the reason (pain, anxiety, conflict, diet), leading to larger stools more difficult to pass as water is absorbed in the colon. The large mass stretches the bowel so that sensation and strength for motility is impaired and softer stool leaks by and out the rectum unbeknownst to the child. I find drawing “the rock of poop” in a dilated thin walled colon with nerves sparse and “liquid stool sneaking by” compared to a “muscular” colon with soft poop animates and objectifies this explanation. Making it clear that leaking is involuntary is key to having the parent and child directly forgive each other for prior anger, blaming, sneaking, or punishment. While the school-aged child needs to be in charge of toileting, resolving the conflict is essential.

The critical next step is cleaning out “the rocks,” which should only rarely be omitted. Polyethylene glycol (PEG, for example, Miralax) has the best evidence, tastes better (without electrolytes), and dosing 1-1.5 g/kg per day premixed in 10 mL/kg fluid of the child’s choice kept cold and swallowed within 30 minutes daily for 3-6 days until feces have no more chunks. This process disimpacts 95% of the time. Reassure parents of the long-term safety despite the warning on the label that it is intended for adult users. Lactulose or sorbitol (1 mL/kg, once or twice daily), magnesium hydroxide, bisacodyl, or senna are long second choices. Only if these fail should mineral oil 15-30 mL per year of age, up to 240 mL per day be used and then not in infants or if there is aspiration risk. While enemas (mineral oil, sodium phosphate, or saline) and p.o. PEG are equally effective, enemas are very intrusive and unnecessary. There is insufficient evidence for probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics.

It is crucial to be honest with the child and parents that clean out can be uncomfortable as cramping or leaking may occur. Thus, starting PEG after school on Friday and being prepared to stay home Monday (if rocks are still emerging) may be needed to avoid accidents.

After clean out, maintenance using daily PEG 0.4-0.8 g/kg per day (best) or lactulose needs to be continued for 2-6 or even 12 months to prevent relapse as the bowel recovers. Bowels need to produce 1-2 soft stools per day for 1 month before considering weaning off PEG. High-fiber (age of child plus 5-10 g/day) diet perpetually is more acceptable if we suggest Frosted Mini-Wheats, Fig Newtons, cookies or muffins baked with wheat bran, popcorn, or fruits with “p” in the name (for example, prunes, pears, apricots), Raisin Bran, or methylcellulose in juice or Popsicles, wafers (with jelly or frosting), or tablets. Infant diet can include brown sugar, or prune/apple/pear juice (Karo is no longer reliably osmotic). Diet needs to include 32-64 ounces of nonmilk fluids, although this will not serve as treatment alone. Limit cow milk to 16 oz. or consider eliminating it entirely if other treatments fail as cow milk is constipating.

Maintenance also requires coaching the child to commence “exercises” to “strengthen the bowel.” These consist of sitting with feet supported to elevate at the hip for 10 minutes by a timer after meals 2-3 times per day and pushing. Entertainment such as music, books, small toys, or a noncompetitive video game and/or rewards of cash, tokens, or treats may lighten the routine. These “exercises” need to be continued indefinitely and monitored with a stool diary. Monthly check-ins are essential to adherence and success, especially in the first 3-4 months, to address any relapses.

While constipation has consequences besides FFI: physical (abdominal pain, anal fissure, rectal prolapse, enuresis, UTI, vesicoureteral reflux, and upper urinary tract dilatation, poor appetite, or poor growth), emotional problems (lability, depression, anxiety, aggression, and low self-esteem), social problems (peer humiliation, teasing, rejection, parent upset, anger, shaming, and punishment), and school absence, we can be supportive and effective coaches for this chronic condition.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Wishful thinking. “Repeated involuntary passage of stool in the underwear after the acquisition of toileting skills (typically > 4 years of age) in the absence of overt neuromuscular anorectal dysfunction,” formerly called encopresis, certainly still exists, renamed functional fecal incontinence (FFI). You have surely cared for many children with FFI over the years, mostly the 80% retentive (constipated) type but newer information may make your management more successful!

The first step in managing FFI is detecting it. This may seem easy as we get a whiff of its presence, even if the child and parents are unaware because of habituation to the odor. Children lose sensation from rectal dilation by the stool mass and become unaware of leakage. But they also are ashamed of and deny “accidents,” hide soiled underwear, and keep distance from parents and peers. Our physical exam may reveal an abdominal mass or perianal stool. While there, check the anal wink, anus placement, lower spine integrity, and ankle reflexes for rare neurological causes. A rectal exam is not required if the story fits but, if not, may show a dilated rectal vault and hard mass. Blood work, x-ray, ultrasound, barium enemas, or manometry are rarely indicated.

Instead of counting on expressed concern, we should routinely ask children about large, painful, or infrequent poops. There are even Rome IV criteria for constipation – at least two of the following without organic pathology and with duration of at least 1 month: less than 2 defecations/week, a history of hard or painful stools, retentive posturing or excessive stool retention, large stools blocking the toilet, large rectal fecal mass, or at least 1 episode of incontinence/week. Our history should request this but parents are often unaware of their child’s patterns except for that blocked toilet!

Other actionable history includes struggles over toilet training, early anal fissure or painful stools, a history of “straining”, crying, or crossing legs (attempts to withhold), short stature and/or diarrhea (possible celiac disease), abdominal pain, poor appetite, or a diet high in milk products or low in fiber. Family history may suggest rare organic causes such as hypothyroidism, Hirschsprung disease, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, or celiac disease, but also constipation (in 55%). After the newborn period (imperforate anus or meconium ileus), 95% of constipation is functional.

While constipation has a worldwide prevalence of 9.5%, low exercise and low-fiber diet are particularly American. Low total food intake as a cause is uncommon in the United States but another reason to screen for food insecurity.

Patterns of behavior can predispose to constipation and FFI. For the child, oppositionality, social anxiety, depression, or eating disorders may interfere with sufficient stool frequency and relaxation needed to fully evacuate at home, daycare, or school. Query every child with ADHD about stool patterns as inattention to urge plus impatience with completing defection (and ODD) are common disorders leading to FFI. Parents who are overly demanding, intrusive, rushing, irritable, anxious, or obsessive may also make routine toileting stressful. When caregivers are neglectful, fail to maintain routines for eating, or ignore dirty diapers, toilet training is more likely to fail and constipation ensue.

Clean out and maintenance using medication are needed for FFI, but child and family behavior change are also critical; the combination has proven more successful. Both the child and parents need clear a explanation of how constipation develops from withholding, regardless of the reason (pain, anxiety, conflict, diet), leading to larger stools more difficult to pass as water is absorbed in the colon. The large mass stretches the bowel so that sensation and strength for motility is impaired and softer stool leaks by and out the rectum unbeknownst to the child. I find drawing “the rock of poop” in a dilated thin walled colon with nerves sparse and “liquid stool sneaking by” compared to a “muscular” colon with soft poop animates and objectifies this explanation. Making it clear that leaking is involuntary is key to having the parent and child directly forgive each other for prior anger, blaming, sneaking, or punishment. While the school-aged child needs to be in charge of toileting, resolving the conflict is essential.

The critical next step is cleaning out “the rocks,” which should only rarely be omitted. Polyethylene glycol (PEG, for example, Miralax) has the best evidence, tastes better (without electrolytes), and dosing 1-1.5 g/kg per day premixed in 10 mL/kg fluid of the child’s choice kept cold and swallowed within 30 minutes daily for 3-6 days until feces have no more chunks. This process disimpacts 95% of the time. Reassure parents of the long-term safety despite the warning on the label that it is intended for adult users. Lactulose or sorbitol (1 mL/kg, once or twice daily), magnesium hydroxide, bisacodyl, or senna are long second choices. Only if these fail should mineral oil 15-30 mL per year of age, up to 240 mL per day be used and then not in infants or if there is aspiration risk. While enemas (mineral oil, sodium phosphate, or saline) and p.o. PEG are equally effective, enemas are very intrusive and unnecessary. There is insufficient evidence for probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics.

It is crucial to be honest with the child and parents that clean out can be uncomfortable as cramping or leaking may occur. Thus, starting PEG after school on Friday and being prepared to stay home Monday (if rocks are still emerging) may be needed to avoid accidents.

After clean out, maintenance using daily PEG 0.4-0.8 g/kg per day (best) or lactulose needs to be continued for 2-6 or even 12 months to prevent relapse as the bowel recovers. Bowels need to produce 1-2 soft stools per day for 1 month before considering weaning off PEG. High-fiber (age of child plus 5-10 g/day) diet perpetually is more acceptable if we suggest Frosted Mini-Wheats, Fig Newtons, cookies or muffins baked with wheat bran, popcorn, or fruits with “p” in the name (for example, prunes, pears, apricots), Raisin Bran, or methylcellulose in juice or Popsicles, wafers (with jelly or frosting), or tablets. Infant diet can include brown sugar, or prune/apple/pear juice (Karo is no longer reliably osmotic). Diet needs to include 32-64 ounces of nonmilk fluids, although this will not serve as treatment alone. Limit cow milk to 16 oz. or consider eliminating it entirely if other treatments fail as cow milk is constipating.

Maintenance also requires coaching the child to commence “exercises” to “strengthen the bowel.” These consist of sitting with feet supported to elevate at the hip for 10 minutes by a timer after meals 2-3 times per day and pushing. Entertainment such as music, books, small toys, or a noncompetitive video game and/or rewards of cash, tokens, or treats may lighten the routine. These “exercises” need to be continued indefinitely and monitored with a stool diary. Monthly check-ins are essential to adherence and success, especially in the first 3-4 months, to address any relapses.

While constipation has consequences besides FFI: physical (abdominal pain, anal fissure, rectal prolapse, enuresis, UTI, vesicoureteral reflux, and upper urinary tract dilatation, poor appetite, or poor growth), emotional problems (lability, depression, anxiety, aggression, and low self-esteem), social problems (peer humiliation, teasing, rejection, parent upset, anger, shaming, and punishment), and school absence, we can be supportive and effective coaches for this chronic condition.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Structural racism and implicit bias are connected, and both must be addressed to move from awareness of racism to action, said Nathan Chomilo, MD, of HealthPartners/Park Nicollet, Brooklyn Center, Minn., in a presentation at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

“We need pediatricians with the courage to address racism head on,” he said.

One step in moving from awareness to action against structural and institutional racism in medicine is examining policies, Dr. Chomilo said. He cited the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 as examples of how policy changes can make a difference, illustrated by data from 1955-1975 that showed a significant decrease in infant deaths among Black infants in Mississippi after 1965.

Medicaid expansion has helped to narrow, but not eliminate, racial disparities in health care, Dr. Chomilo said. The impact of Medicare and Medicaid is evident in the current COVID-19 pandemic, as county level data show that areas where more than 25% of the population are uninsured have higher rates of COVID-19 infections, said Dr. Chomilo. Policies that impact access to care also impact their incidence of chronic diseases and risk for severe disease, he noted.

“If you don’t have ready access to a health care provider, you don’t have access to the vaccine, and you don’t have information that would inform your getting the vaccine,” he added.
 

Prioritizing the power of voting

“Voting is one of many ways we can impact structural racism in health care policy,” Dr. Chomilo emphasized.

However, voting inequity remains a challenge, Dr. Chomilo noted. Community level disparities lead to inequity in voting access and subsequent disparities in voter participation, he said. “Leaders are less responsive to nonvoting constituents,” which can result in policies that impact health inequitably, and loop back to community level health disparities, he explained.

Historically, physicians have had an 8%-9% lower voter turnout than the general public, although this may have changed in recent elections, Dr. Chomilo said. He encouraged all clinicians to set an example and vote, and to empower their patients to vote. Evidence shows that enfranchisement of Black voters is associated with reductions in education gaps for Blacks and Whites, and that enfranchisement of women is associated with increased spending on children and lower child mortality, he said. Dr. Chomilo encouraged pediatricians and all clinicians to take advantage of the resources on voting available from the American Academy of Pediatrics (aap.org/votekids).

“When we see more people in a community vote, leaders are more responsive to their needs,” he said.
 

Informing racial identity

“Racial identity is informed by racial socialization,” Dr. Chomilo said. “All of us are socialized along the lines of race; it happens in conversations with parents, family, peers, community.” Another point in moving from awareness to action in eliminating structural racism is recognizing that children are not too young to talk about race, Dr. Chomilo emphasized.

Children start to navigate racial identity and to take note of other differences at an early age. For example, a 3-year-old might ask, “why does that person talk funny, why is that person being pushed in a chair?” Dr. Chomilo said, and it is important for parents and as pediatricians to be prepared for these questions, which are part of normal development. As children get older, they start to reflect on what differences mean for them, which is not rooted in anything negative, he noted.

Children first develop racial identity at home, but children solidify their identities in child care and school settings, Dr. Chomilo said. The American Academy of Pediatrics has acknowledged the potential for racial bias in education and child care, and said in a statement that, “it is critical for pediatricians to recognize the institutional personally mediated, and internalized levels of racism that occur in the educational setting, because education is a critical social determinant of health for children.” In fact, data from children in preschool show that they use racial categories to identify themselves and others, to include or exclude children from activities, and to negotiate power in their social and play networks.

Early intervention matters in educating children about racism, Dr. Chomilo said. “If we were not taught to talk about race, it is on us to learn about it ourselves as well,” he said.

Ultimately, the goal is to create active antiracism among adults and children, said Dr. Chomilo. He encouraged pediatricians and parents not to shut down or discourage children when they raise questions of race, but to take the opportunity to teach. “There may be hurt feelings around what a child said, even if they didn’t mean to offend someone,” he noted. Take the topic seriously, and make racism conversations ongoing; teach children to safely oppose negative messages and behaviors in others, and replace them with something positive, he emphasized.
 

Addressing bias in clinical settings

Dr. Chomilo also encouraged hospitalists to consider internalized racism in clinical settings and take action to build confidence and cultural pride in all patients by ensuring that a pediatric hospital unit is welcoming and representative of the diversity in a given community, with appropriate options for books, movies, and toys. He also encouraged pediatric hospitalists to assess children for experiences of racism as part of a social assessment. Be aware of signs of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, depression, or grief that might have a racial component, he said.

Dr. Chomilo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Structural racism and implicit bias are connected, and both must be addressed to move from awareness of racism to action, said Nathan Chomilo, MD, of HealthPartners/Park Nicollet, Brooklyn Center, Minn., in a presentation at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

“We need pediatricians with the courage to address racism head on,” he said.

One step in moving from awareness to action against structural and institutional racism in medicine is examining policies, Dr. Chomilo said. He cited the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 as examples of how policy changes can make a difference, illustrated by data from 1955-1975 that showed a significant decrease in infant deaths among Black infants in Mississippi after 1965.

Medicaid expansion has helped to narrow, but not eliminate, racial disparities in health care, Dr. Chomilo said. The impact of Medicare and Medicaid is evident in the current COVID-19 pandemic, as county level data show that areas where more than 25% of the population are uninsured have higher rates of COVID-19 infections, said Dr. Chomilo. Policies that impact access to care also impact their incidence of chronic diseases and risk for severe disease, he noted.

“If you don’t have ready access to a health care provider, you don’t have access to the vaccine, and you don’t have information that would inform your getting the vaccine,” he added.
 

Prioritizing the power of voting

“Voting is one of many ways we can impact structural racism in health care policy,” Dr. Chomilo emphasized.

However, voting inequity remains a challenge, Dr. Chomilo noted. Community level disparities lead to inequity in voting access and subsequent disparities in voter participation, he said. “Leaders are less responsive to nonvoting constituents,” which can result in policies that impact health inequitably, and loop back to community level health disparities, he explained.

Historically, physicians have had an 8%-9% lower voter turnout than the general public, although this may have changed in recent elections, Dr. Chomilo said. He encouraged all clinicians to set an example and vote, and to empower their patients to vote. Evidence shows that enfranchisement of Black voters is associated with reductions in education gaps for Blacks and Whites, and that enfranchisement of women is associated with increased spending on children and lower child mortality, he said. Dr. Chomilo encouraged pediatricians and all clinicians to take advantage of the resources on voting available from the American Academy of Pediatrics (aap.org/votekids).

“When we see more people in a community vote, leaders are more responsive to their needs,” he said.
 

Informing racial identity

“Racial identity is informed by racial socialization,” Dr. Chomilo said. “All of us are socialized along the lines of race; it happens in conversations with parents, family, peers, community.” Another point in moving from awareness to action in eliminating structural racism is recognizing that children are not too young to talk about race, Dr. Chomilo emphasized.

Children start to navigate racial identity and to take note of other differences at an early age. For example, a 3-year-old might ask, “why does that person talk funny, why is that person being pushed in a chair?” Dr. Chomilo said, and it is important for parents and as pediatricians to be prepared for these questions, which are part of normal development. As children get older, they start to reflect on what differences mean for them, which is not rooted in anything negative, he noted.

Children first develop racial identity at home, but children solidify their identities in child care and school settings, Dr. Chomilo said. The American Academy of Pediatrics has acknowledged the potential for racial bias in education and child care, and said in a statement that, “it is critical for pediatricians to recognize the institutional personally mediated, and internalized levels of racism that occur in the educational setting, because education is a critical social determinant of health for children.” In fact, data from children in preschool show that they use racial categories to identify themselves and others, to include or exclude children from activities, and to negotiate power in their social and play networks.

Early intervention matters in educating children about racism, Dr. Chomilo said. “If we were not taught to talk about race, it is on us to learn about it ourselves as well,” he said.

Ultimately, the goal is to create active antiracism among adults and children, said Dr. Chomilo. He encouraged pediatricians and parents not to shut down or discourage children when they raise questions of race, but to take the opportunity to teach. “There may be hurt feelings around what a child said, even if they didn’t mean to offend someone,” he noted. Take the topic seriously, and make racism conversations ongoing; teach children to safely oppose negative messages and behaviors in others, and replace them with something positive, he emphasized.
 

Addressing bias in clinical settings

Dr. Chomilo also encouraged hospitalists to consider internalized racism in clinical settings and take action to build confidence and cultural pride in all patients by ensuring that a pediatric hospital unit is welcoming and representative of the diversity in a given community, with appropriate options for books, movies, and toys. He also encouraged pediatric hospitalists to assess children for experiences of racism as part of a social assessment. Be aware of signs of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, depression, or grief that might have a racial component, he said.

Dr. Chomilo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Structural racism and implicit bias are connected, and both must be addressed to move from awareness of racism to action, said Nathan Chomilo, MD, of HealthPartners/Park Nicollet, Brooklyn Center, Minn., in a presentation at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

“We need pediatricians with the courage to address racism head on,” he said.

One step in moving from awareness to action against structural and institutional racism in medicine is examining policies, Dr. Chomilo said. He cited the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 as examples of how policy changes can make a difference, illustrated by data from 1955-1975 that showed a significant decrease in infant deaths among Black infants in Mississippi after 1965.

Medicaid expansion has helped to narrow, but not eliminate, racial disparities in health care, Dr. Chomilo said. The impact of Medicare and Medicaid is evident in the current COVID-19 pandemic, as county level data show that areas where more than 25% of the population are uninsured have higher rates of COVID-19 infections, said Dr. Chomilo. Policies that impact access to care also impact their incidence of chronic diseases and risk for severe disease, he noted.

“If you don’t have ready access to a health care provider, you don’t have access to the vaccine, and you don’t have information that would inform your getting the vaccine,” he added.
 

Prioritizing the power of voting

“Voting is one of many ways we can impact structural racism in health care policy,” Dr. Chomilo emphasized.

However, voting inequity remains a challenge, Dr. Chomilo noted. Community level disparities lead to inequity in voting access and subsequent disparities in voter participation, he said. “Leaders are less responsive to nonvoting constituents,” which can result in policies that impact health inequitably, and loop back to community level health disparities, he explained.

Historically, physicians have had an 8%-9% lower voter turnout than the general public, although this may have changed in recent elections, Dr. Chomilo said. He encouraged all clinicians to set an example and vote, and to empower their patients to vote. Evidence shows that enfranchisement of Black voters is associated with reductions in education gaps for Blacks and Whites, and that enfranchisement of women is associated with increased spending on children and lower child mortality, he said. Dr. Chomilo encouraged pediatricians and all clinicians to take advantage of the resources on voting available from the American Academy of Pediatrics (aap.org/votekids).

“When we see more people in a community vote, leaders are more responsive to their needs,” he said.
 

Informing racial identity

“Racial identity is informed by racial socialization,” Dr. Chomilo said. “All of us are socialized along the lines of race; it happens in conversations with parents, family, peers, community.” Another point in moving from awareness to action in eliminating structural racism is recognizing that children are not too young to talk about race, Dr. Chomilo emphasized.

Children start to navigate racial identity and to take note of other differences at an early age. For example, a 3-year-old might ask, “why does that person talk funny, why is that person being pushed in a chair?” Dr. Chomilo said, and it is important for parents and as pediatricians to be prepared for these questions, which are part of normal development. As children get older, they start to reflect on what differences mean for them, which is not rooted in anything negative, he noted.

Children first develop racial identity at home, but children solidify their identities in child care and school settings, Dr. Chomilo said. The American Academy of Pediatrics has acknowledged the potential for racial bias in education and child care, and said in a statement that, “it is critical for pediatricians to recognize the institutional personally mediated, and internalized levels of racism that occur in the educational setting, because education is a critical social determinant of health for children.” In fact, data from children in preschool show that they use racial categories to identify themselves and others, to include or exclude children from activities, and to negotiate power in their social and play networks.

Early intervention matters in educating children about racism, Dr. Chomilo said. “If we were not taught to talk about race, it is on us to learn about it ourselves as well,” he said.

Ultimately, the goal is to create active antiracism among adults and children, said Dr. Chomilo. He encouraged pediatricians and parents not to shut down or discourage children when they raise questions of race, but to take the opportunity to teach. “There may be hurt feelings around what a child said, even if they didn’t mean to offend someone,” he noted. Take the topic seriously, and make racism conversations ongoing; teach children to safely oppose negative messages and behaviors in others, and replace them with something positive, he emphasized.
 

Addressing bias in clinical settings

Dr. Chomilo also encouraged hospitalists to consider internalized racism in clinical settings and take action to build confidence and cultural pride in all patients by ensuring that a pediatric hospital unit is welcoming and representative of the diversity in a given community, with appropriate options for books, movies, and toys. He also encouraged pediatric hospitalists to assess children for experiences of racism as part of a social assessment. Be aware of signs of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, depression, or grief that might have a racial component, he said.

Dr. Chomilo had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced that its award-winning Center for Quality Improvement will partner on the National Institutes of Health National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute study, “The SIP Study: Simultaneously Implementing Pathways for Improving Asthma, Pneumonia, and Bronchiolitis Care for Hospitalized Children” (NIH R61HL157804). The core objectives of the planned 5-year study are to identify and test practical, sustainable strategies for implementing a multicondition clinical pathway intervention for children hospitalized with asthma, pneumonia, or bronchiolitis in community hospitals.

Under the leadership of principal investigator Sunitha Kaiser, MD, MSc, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, the study will employ rigorous implementation science methods and SHM’s mentored implementation model.

“The lessons learned from this study could inform improved care delivery strategies for the millions of children hospitalized with respiratory illnesses across the U.S. each year,” said Jenna Goldstein, chief of strategic partnerships at SHM and director of SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement.

The team will recruit a diverse group of community hospitals in partnership with SHM, the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics Network (within the American Academy of Pediatrics), the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings Network, America’s Hospital Essentials, and the National Improvement Partnership Network. In collaboration with these national organizations and the participating hospitals, the team seeks to realize the following aims:

• Aim 1. (Preimplementation) Identify barriers and facilitators of implementing a multicondition pathway intervention and refine the intervention for community hospitals.
• Aim 2a. Determine the effects of the intervention, compared with control via chart reviews of children hospitalized with asthma, pneumonia, or bronchiolitis.
• Aim 2b. Determine if the core implementation strategies (audit and feedback, electronic order sets, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles) are associated with clinicians’ guideline adoption.

“SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement is a recognized partner in facilitating process and culture change in the hospital to improve outcomes for patients,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “SHM is committed to supporting quality-improvement research, and we look forward to contributing to improved care for hospitalized pediatric patients through this study and beyond.”

To learn more about SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, visit hospitalmedicine.org/qi.

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced that its award-winning Center for Quality Improvement will partner on the National Institutes of Health National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute study, “The SIP Study: Simultaneously Implementing Pathways for Improving Asthma, Pneumonia, and Bronchiolitis Care for Hospitalized Children” (NIH R61HL157804). The core objectives of the planned 5-year study are to identify and test practical, sustainable strategies for implementing a multicondition clinical pathway intervention for children hospitalized with asthma, pneumonia, or bronchiolitis in community hospitals.

Under the leadership of principal investigator Sunitha Kaiser, MD, MSc, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, the study will employ rigorous implementation science methods and SHM’s mentored implementation model.

“The lessons learned from this study could inform improved care delivery strategies for the millions of children hospitalized with respiratory illnesses across the U.S. each year,” said Jenna Goldstein, chief of strategic partnerships at SHM and director of SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement.

The team will recruit a diverse group of community hospitals in partnership with SHM, the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics Network (within the American Academy of Pediatrics), the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings Network, America’s Hospital Essentials, and the National Improvement Partnership Network. In collaboration with these national organizations and the participating hospitals, the team seeks to realize the following aims:

• Aim 1. (Preimplementation) Identify barriers and facilitators of implementing a multicondition pathway intervention and refine the intervention for community hospitals.
• Aim 2a. Determine the effects of the intervention, compared with control via chart reviews of children hospitalized with asthma, pneumonia, or bronchiolitis.
• Aim 2b. Determine if the core implementation strategies (audit and feedback, electronic order sets, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles) are associated with clinicians’ guideline adoption.

“SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement is a recognized partner in facilitating process and culture change in the hospital to improve outcomes for patients,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “SHM is committed to supporting quality-improvement research, and we look forward to contributing to improved care for hospitalized pediatric patients through this study and beyond.”

To learn more about SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, visit hospitalmedicine.org/qi.

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced that its award-winning Center for Quality Improvement will partner on the National Institutes of Health National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute study, “The SIP Study: Simultaneously Implementing Pathways for Improving Asthma, Pneumonia, and Bronchiolitis Care for Hospitalized Children” (NIH R61HL157804). The core objectives of the planned 5-year study are to identify and test practical, sustainable strategies for implementing a multicondition clinical pathway intervention for children hospitalized with asthma, pneumonia, or bronchiolitis in community hospitals.

Under the leadership of principal investigator Sunitha Kaiser, MD, MSc, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of California, San Francisco, the study will employ rigorous implementation science methods and SHM’s mentored implementation model.

“The lessons learned from this study could inform improved care delivery strategies for the millions of children hospitalized with respiratory illnesses across the U.S. each year,” said Jenna Goldstein, chief of strategic partnerships at SHM and director of SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement.

The team will recruit a diverse group of community hospitals in partnership with SHM, the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics Network (within the American Academy of Pediatrics), the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings Network, America’s Hospital Essentials, and the National Improvement Partnership Network. In collaboration with these national organizations and the participating hospitals, the team seeks to realize the following aims:

• Aim 1. (Preimplementation) Identify barriers and facilitators of implementing a multicondition pathway intervention and refine the intervention for community hospitals.
• Aim 2a. Determine the effects of the intervention, compared with control via chart reviews of children hospitalized with asthma, pneumonia, or bronchiolitis.
• Aim 2b. Determine if the core implementation strategies (audit and feedback, electronic order sets, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles) are associated with clinicians’ guideline adoption.

“SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement is a recognized partner in facilitating process and culture change in the hospital to improve outcomes for patients,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “SHM is committed to supporting quality-improvement research, and we look forward to contributing to improved care for hospitalized pediatric patients through this study and beyond.”

To learn more about SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, visit hospitalmedicine.org/qi.

Most pediatric patients diagnosed with an inflammatory or autoimmune disorder lacked evidence of an immune response to the hepatitis B vaccine, results from a single-center retrospective study showed.

“Hepatitis B is a common viral infection with 2 billion people worldwide having evidence of prior or current infection, and it can present as an acute or chronic infection,” or with chronic sequelae, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, Alexandra Ritter said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. A three-dose vaccination series is recommended beginning at birth, and in 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 90.5% of U.S. children aged 19-35 months had completed the series.

While the vaccine series provides protection in healthy individuals more than 95% of the time, a decreased response has been noted in specific pediatric populations, including those with inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. “This is important to note and investigate further because a decreased vaccine response increases the risk for this high-risk population, and the use of boosters is currently debated,” said Ms. Ritter, who is a fourth-year student at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

To determine the percent of pediatric patients with inflammatory or autoimmune disease who lack evidence of immunity following the hepatitis B vaccine series, Ms. Ritter and colleagues Abigail Truitt and pediatric dermatologist Lara Wine Lee, MD, PhD, of MUSC, retrospectively reviewed the charts of 160 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years, who were diagnosed with an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and had documented evidence of vaccination and serologic testing prior to the start of immunosuppressive therapy.

Of the 160 patients, 100 (63%) had IBD, 34 (21%) had an autoimmune disease, 26 (16%) had an autoinflammatory disease, 89 (56%) were female, and their mean age was 15 years.

The researchers observed variation in the testing ordered between the three patient groups. Specifically, 88.2% of autoimmune patients had hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing, compared with 96.15% of patients with an autoinflammatory disease and 67% of patients with IBD, while 76.47% of patients with an autoimmune disease had hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) testing, compared with 88.46% of patients with an autoinflammatory disease and 31% of patients with IBD.

In addition, 82.35% of patients with an autoimmune disease had HBsAg testing, compared with 100% of patients with an autoinflammatory disease and 94% of patients with IBD.

Of the 148 patients who had HBsAg testing ordered and completed prior to starting an immunosuppressive drug, there was no statistically significant difference in the percent of patients showing evidence of an immune response to the hepatitis B vaccine (32.14% among patients with an autoimmune disease, 34.62% among patients with an autoinflammatory disease, and 31.91% among patients with IBD). Combined, 67.57% of tested negative for the hepatitis B surface antibody.

“Our study showed that the majority of these patients did not show serologic evidence of immunity despite being fully vaccinated,” Ms. Ritter said. “There was also variation in the testing ordered and a more standardized approach is needed in this high-risk population.” She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and lack of a control group.

“This brings us to our next question of whether this indicates a failure of the vaccine, or the way immunity is tested,” she continued. “The CDC and the European Consensus Group on Hepatitis B Immunity recommend a cutoff of greater than 10 mIU/mL. Those that achieve immunity are protected for up to 20 years due to immune memory, even if their antibody levels later drop. There have been rare cases of immunocompetent individuals having evidence of transient asymptomatic infections when antibody levels drop. The chronic disease has only been documented in infants born to positive mothers. In hemodialysis patients, however, clinically significant infections have been documented when antibody levels drop.”

The CDC only recommends postvaccination testing to infants born to positive mothers, health care workers at high risk, hemodialysis patients, people with HIV and other immunocompromised people, and needle-sharing partners of chronically infected people. This is completed 1-2 months following the third vaccine dose, and those with antibody levels less than 10 mIU/mL should be revaccinated. “As some groups do not respond to the vaccine series, alternative dosing and the intradermal vaccine have been studied and shown to be effective in certain groups,” she said.

When it comes to monitoring immunocompromised individuals and giving booster shots, however, there are conflicting recommendations. The CDC recommends yearly testing and booster shots when levels drop below 10 mIU/mL only in hemodialysis patients, while the European Consensus Group recommends testing every 6-12 months for immunocompromised individuals and boosters when their levels drop below 10 mIU/mL.

“The CDC has not yet determined if other immunocompromised individuals should receive a booster, with more research required, but studies have shown it to be effective,” Ms. Ritter said. In a similar study looking at evidence of immunity in children with connective tissue disease who were on immunosuppressive treatment, 50% had no evidence of protective antibodies, compared with 96% in the control group. “In that study, a booster shot was given, and protective antibody concentrations were found at follow-up,” she said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Most pediatric patients diagnosed with an inflammatory or autoimmune disorder lacked evidence of an immune response to the hepatitis B vaccine, results from a single-center retrospective study showed.

“Hepatitis B is a common viral infection with 2 billion people worldwide having evidence of prior or current infection, and it can present as an acute or chronic infection,” or with chronic sequelae, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, Alexandra Ritter said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. A three-dose vaccination series is recommended beginning at birth, and in 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 90.5% of U.S. children aged 19-35 months had completed the series.

While the vaccine series provides protection in healthy individuals more than 95% of the time, a decreased response has been noted in specific pediatric populations, including those with inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. “This is important to note and investigate further because a decreased vaccine response increases the risk for this high-risk population, and the use of boosters is currently debated,” said Ms. Ritter, who is a fourth-year student at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

To determine the percent of pediatric patients with inflammatory or autoimmune disease who lack evidence of immunity following the hepatitis B vaccine series, Ms. Ritter and colleagues Abigail Truitt and pediatric dermatologist Lara Wine Lee, MD, PhD, of MUSC, retrospectively reviewed the charts of 160 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years, who were diagnosed with an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and had documented evidence of vaccination and serologic testing prior to the start of immunosuppressive therapy.

Of the 160 patients, 100 (63%) had IBD, 34 (21%) had an autoimmune disease, 26 (16%) had an autoinflammatory disease, 89 (56%) were female, and their mean age was 15 years.

The researchers observed variation in the testing ordered between the three patient groups. Specifically, 88.2% of autoimmune patients had hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing, compared with 96.15% of patients with an autoinflammatory disease and 67% of patients with IBD, while 76.47% of patients with an autoimmune disease had hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) testing, compared with 88.46% of patients with an autoinflammatory disease and 31% of patients with IBD.

In addition, 82.35% of patients with an autoimmune disease had HBsAg testing, compared with 100% of patients with an autoinflammatory disease and 94% of patients with IBD.

Of the 148 patients who had HBsAg testing ordered and completed prior to starting an immunosuppressive drug, there was no statistically significant difference in the percent of patients showing evidence of an immune response to the hepatitis B vaccine (32.14% among patients with an autoimmune disease, 34.62% among patients with an autoinflammatory disease, and 31.91% among patients with IBD). Combined, 67.57% of tested negative for the hepatitis B surface antibody.

“Our study showed that the majority of these patients did not show serologic evidence of immunity despite being fully vaccinated,” Ms. Ritter said. “There was also variation in the testing ordered and a more standardized approach is needed in this high-risk population.” She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and lack of a control group.

“This brings us to our next question of whether this indicates a failure of the vaccine, or the way immunity is tested,” she continued. “The CDC and the European Consensus Group on Hepatitis B Immunity recommend a cutoff of greater than 10 mIU/mL. Those that achieve immunity are protected for up to 20 years due to immune memory, even if their antibody levels later drop. There have been rare cases of immunocompetent individuals having evidence of transient asymptomatic infections when antibody levels drop. The chronic disease has only been documented in infants born to positive mothers. In hemodialysis patients, however, clinically significant infections have been documented when antibody levels drop.”

The CDC only recommends postvaccination testing to infants born to positive mothers, health care workers at high risk, hemodialysis patients, people with HIV and other immunocompromised people, and needle-sharing partners of chronically infected people. This is completed 1-2 months following the third vaccine dose, and those with antibody levels less than 10 mIU/mL should be revaccinated. “As some groups do not respond to the vaccine series, alternative dosing and the intradermal vaccine have been studied and shown to be effective in certain groups,” she said.

When it comes to monitoring immunocompromised individuals and giving booster shots, however, there are conflicting recommendations. The CDC recommends yearly testing and booster shots when levels drop below 10 mIU/mL only in hemodialysis patients, while the European Consensus Group recommends testing every 6-12 months for immunocompromised individuals and boosters when their levels drop below 10 mIU/mL.

“The CDC has not yet determined if other immunocompromised individuals should receive a booster, with more research required, but studies have shown it to be effective,” Ms. Ritter said. In a similar study looking at evidence of immunity in children with connective tissue disease who were on immunosuppressive treatment, 50% had no evidence of protective antibodies, compared with 96% in the control group. “In that study, a booster shot was given, and protective antibody concentrations were found at follow-up,” she said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Most pediatric patients diagnosed with an inflammatory or autoimmune disorder lacked evidence of an immune response to the hepatitis B vaccine, results from a single-center retrospective study showed.

“Hepatitis B is a common viral infection with 2 billion people worldwide having evidence of prior or current infection, and it can present as an acute or chronic infection,” or with chronic sequelae, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, Alexandra Ritter said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. A three-dose vaccination series is recommended beginning at birth, and in 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 90.5% of U.S. children aged 19-35 months had completed the series.

While the vaccine series provides protection in healthy individuals more than 95% of the time, a decreased response has been noted in specific pediatric populations, including those with inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. “This is important to note and investigate further because a decreased vaccine response increases the risk for this high-risk population, and the use of boosters is currently debated,” said Ms. Ritter, who is a fourth-year student at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

To determine the percent of pediatric patients with inflammatory or autoimmune disease who lack evidence of immunity following the hepatitis B vaccine series, Ms. Ritter and colleagues Abigail Truitt and pediatric dermatologist Lara Wine Lee, MD, PhD, of MUSC, retrospectively reviewed the charts of 160 patients between the ages of 6 months and 21 years, who were diagnosed with an autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and had documented evidence of vaccination and serologic testing prior to the start of immunosuppressive therapy.

Of the 160 patients, 100 (63%) had IBD, 34 (21%) had an autoimmune disease, 26 (16%) had an autoinflammatory disease, 89 (56%) were female, and their mean age was 15 years.

The researchers observed variation in the testing ordered between the three patient groups. Specifically, 88.2% of autoimmune patients had hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing, compared with 96.15% of patients with an autoinflammatory disease and 67% of patients with IBD, while 76.47% of patients with an autoimmune disease had hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) testing, compared with 88.46% of patients with an autoinflammatory disease and 31% of patients with IBD.

In addition, 82.35% of patients with an autoimmune disease had HBsAg testing, compared with 100% of patients with an autoinflammatory disease and 94% of patients with IBD.

Of the 148 patients who had HBsAg testing ordered and completed prior to starting an immunosuppressive drug, there was no statistically significant difference in the percent of patients showing evidence of an immune response to the hepatitis B vaccine (32.14% among patients with an autoimmune disease, 34.62% among patients with an autoinflammatory disease, and 31.91% among patients with IBD). Combined, 67.57% of tested negative for the hepatitis B surface antibody.

“Our study showed that the majority of these patients did not show serologic evidence of immunity despite being fully vaccinated,” Ms. Ritter said. “There was also variation in the testing ordered and a more standardized approach is needed in this high-risk population.” She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design and lack of a control group.

“This brings us to our next question of whether this indicates a failure of the vaccine, or the way immunity is tested,” she continued. “The CDC and the European Consensus Group on Hepatitis B Immunity recommend a cutoff of greater than 10 mIU/mL. Those that achieve immunity are protected for up to 20 years due to immune memory, even if their antibody levels later drop. There have been rare cases of immunocompetent individuals having evidence of transient asymptomatic infections when antibody levels drop. The chronic disease has only been documented in infants born to positive mothers. In hemodialysis patients, however, clinically significant infections have been documented when antibody levels drop.”

The CDC only recommends postvaccination testing to infants born to positive mothers, health care workers at high risk, hemodialysis patients, people with HIV and other immunocompromised people, and needle-sharing partners of chronically infected people. This is completed 1-2 months following the third vaccine dose, and those with antibody levels less than 10 mIU/mL should be revaccinated. “As some groups do not respond to the vaccine series, alternative dosing and the intradermal vaccine have been studied and shown to be effective in certain groups,” she said.

When it comes to monitoring immunocompromised individuals and giving booster shots, however, there are conflicting recommendations. The CDC recommends yearly testing and booster shots when levels drop below 10 mIU/mL only in hemodialysis patients, while the European Consensus Group recommends testing every 6-12 months for immunocompromised individuals and boosters when their levels drop below 10 mIU/mL.

“The CDC has not yet determined if other immunocompromised individuals should receive a booster, with more research required, but studies have shown it to be effective,” Ms. Ritter said. In a similar study looking at evidence of immunity in children with connective tissue disease who were on immunosuppressive treatment, 50% had no evidence of protective antibodies, compared with 96% in the control group. “In that study, a booster shot was given, and protective antibody concentrations were found at follow-up,” she said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The long-anticipated American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for the treatment of well-appearing febrile infants have arrived, and key points include updated guidance for cerebrospinal fluid testing and urine cultures, according to Robert Pantell, MD, and Kenneth Roberts, MD, who presented the guidelines at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

The AAP guideline was published in the August 2021 issue of Pediatrics. The guideline includes 21 key action statements and 40 total recommendations, and describes separate management algorithms for three age groups: infants aged 8-21 days, 22-28 days, and 29-60 days.

Dr. Roberts, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Dr. Pantell, of the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that all pediatricians should read the full guideline, but they offered an overview of some of the notable points.

Some changes that drove the development of evidence-based guideline included changes in technology, such as the increased use of procalcitonin, the development of large research networks for studies of sufficient size, and a need to reduce the costs of unnecessary care and unnecessary trauma for infants, Dr. Roberts said. Use of data from large networks such as the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network provided enough evidence to support dividing the aged 8- to 60-day population into three groups.

The guideline applies to well-appearing term infants aged 8-60 days and at least 37 weeks’ gestation, with fever of 38° C (100.4° F) or higher in the past 24 hours in the home or clinical setting. The decision to exclude infants in the first week of life from the guideline was because at this age, infants “are sufficiently different in rates and types of illness, including early-onset bacterial infection,” according to the authors.

Dr. Roberts emphasized that the guidelines apply to “well-appearing infants,” which is not always obvious. “If a clinician is not confident an infant is well appearing, the clinical practice guideline should not be applied,” he said.

The guideline also includes a visual algorithm for each age group.

Dr. Pantell summarized the key action statements for the three age groups, and encouraged pediatricians to review the visual algorithms and footnotes available in the full text of the guideline.

The guideline includes seven key action statements for each of the three age groups. Four of these address evaluations, using urine, blood culture, inflammatory markers (IM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). One action statement focuses on initial treatment, and two on management: hospital admission versus monitoring at home, and treatment cessation.
 

Infants aged 8-21 days

The key action statements for well-appearing infants aged 8-21 days are similar to what clinicians likely would do for ill-appearing infants, the authors noted, based in part on the challenge of assessing an infant this age as “well appearing,” because they don’t yet have the ability to interact with the clinician.

For the 8- to 21-day group, the first two key actions are to obtain a urine specimen and blood culture, Dr. Pantell said. Also, clinicians “should” obtain a CSF for analysis and culture. “We recognize that the ability to get CSF quickly is a challenge,” he added. However, for the 8- to 21-day age group, a new feature is that these infants may be discharged if the CSF is negative. Evaluation in this youngest group states that clinicians “may assess inflammatory markers” including height of fever, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin.

Treatment of infants in the 8- to 21-day group “should” include parenteral antimicrobial therapy, according to the guideline, and these infants “should” be actively monitored in the hospital by nurses and staff experienced in neonatal care, Dr. Pantell said. The guideline also includes a key action statement to stop antimicrobials at 24-36 hours if cultures are negative, but to treat identified organisms.
 

Infants aged 22-28 days

In both the 22- to 28-day-old and 29- to 60-day-old groups, the guideline offers opportunities for less testing and treatment, such as avoiding a lumbar puncture, and fewer hospitalizations. The development of a separate guideline for the 22- to 28-day group is something new, said Dr. Pantell. The guideline states that clinicians should obtain urine specimens and blood culture, and should assess IM in this group. Further key action statements note that clinicians “should obtain a CSF if any IM is positive,” but “may” obtain CSF if the infant is hospitalized, if blood and urine cultures have been obtained, and if none of the IMs are abnormal.

As with younger patients, those with a negative CSF can go home, he said. As for treatment, clinicians “should” administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy to infants managed at home even if they have a negative CSF and urinalysis (UA), and no abnormal inflammatory markers Other points for management of infants in this age group at home include verbal teaching and written instructions for caregivers, plans for a re-evaluation at home in 24 hours, and a plan for communication and access to emergency care in case of a change in clinical status, Dr. Pantell explained. The guideline states that infants “should” be hospitalized if CSF is either not obtained or not interpretable, which leaves room for clinical judgment and individual circumstances. Antimicrobials “should” be discontinued in this group once all cultures are negative after 24-36 hours and no other infection requires treatment.
 

Infants aged 29-60 days

For the 29- to 60-day group, there are some differences, the main one is the recommendation of blood cultures in this group, said Dr. Pantell. “We are seeing a lot of UTIs [urinary tract infections], and we would like those treated.” However, clinicians need not obtain a CSF if other IMs are normal, but may do so if any IM is abnormal. Antimicrobial therapy may include ceftriaxone or cephalexin for UTIs, or vancomycin for bacteremia.

Although antimicrobial therapy is an option for UTIs and bacterial meningitis, clinicians “need not” use antimicrobials if CSF is normal, if UA is negative, and if no IMs are abnormal, Dr. Pantell added. Overall, further management of infants in this oldest age group should focus on discharge to home in the absence of abnormal findings, but hospitalization in the presence of abnormal CSF, IMs, or other concerns.

During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Roberts said that, while rectal temperature is preferable, any method is acceptable as a starting point for applying the guideline. Importantly, the guideline still leaves room for clinical judgment. “We hope this will change some thinking as far as whether one model fits all,” he noted. The authors tried to temper the word “should” with the word “may” when possible, so clinicians can say: “I’m going to individualize my decision to the infant in front of me.”

Ultimately, the guideline is meant as a guide, and not an absolute standard of care, the authors said. The language of the key action statements includes the words “should, may, need not” in place of “must, must not.” The guideline recommends factoring family values and preferences into any treatment decisions. “Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.”

The guideline received no outside funding. The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The long-anticipated American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for the treatment of well-appearing febrile infants have arrived, and key points include updated guidance for cerebrospinal fluid testing and urine cultures, according to Robert Pantell, MD, and Kenneth Roberts, MD, who presented the guidelines at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

The AAP guideline was published in the August 2021 issue of Pediatrics. The guideline includes 21 key action statements and 40 total recommendations, and describes separate management algorithms for three age groups: infants aged 8-21 days, 22-28 days, and 29-60 days.

Dr. Roberts, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Dr. Pantell, of the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that all pediatricians should read the full guideline, but they offered an overview of some of the notable points.

Some changes that drove the development of evidence-based guideline included changes in technology, such as the increased use of procalcitonin, the development of large research networks for studies of sufficient size, and a need to reduce the costs of unnecessary care and unnecessary trauma for infants, Dr. Roberts said. Use of data from large networks such as the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network provided enough evidence to support dividing the aged 8- to 60-day population into three groups.

The guideline applies to well-appearing term infants aged 8-60 days and at least 37 weeks’ gestation, with fever of 38° C (100.4° F) or higher in the past 24 hours in the home or clinical setting. The decision to exclude infants in the first week of life from the guideline was because at this age, infants “are sufficiently different in rates and types of illness, including early-onset bacterial infection,” according to the authors.

Dr. Roberts emphasized that the guidelines apply to “well-appearing infants,” which is not always obvious. “If a clinician is not confident an infant is well appearing, the clinical practice guideline should not be applied,” he said.

The guideline also includes a visual algorithm for each age group.

Dr. Pantell summarized the key action statements for the three age groups, and encouraged pediatricians to review the visual algorithms and footnotes available in the full text of the guideline.

The guideline includes seven key action statements for each of the three age groups. Four of these address evaluations, using urine, blood culture, inflammatory markers (IM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). One action statement focuses on initial treatment, and two on management: hospital admission versus monitoring at home, and treatment cessation.
 

Infants aged 8-21 days

The key action statements for well-appearing infants aged 8-21 days are similar to what clinicians likely would do for ill-appearing infants, the authors noted, based in part on the challenge of assessing an infant this age as “well appearing,” because they don’t yet have the ability to interact with the clinician.

For the 8- to 21-day group, the first two key actions are to obtain a urine specimen and blood culture, Dr. Pantell said. Also, clinicians “should” obtain a CSF for analysis and culture. “We recognize that the ability to get CSF quickly is a challenge,” he added. However, for the 8- to 21-day age group, a new feature is that these infants may be discharged if the CSF is negative. Evaluation in this youngest group states that clinicians “may assess inflammatory markers” including height of fever, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin.

Treatment of infants in the 8- to 21-day group “should” include parenteral antimicrobial therapy, according to the guideline, and these infants “should” be actively monitored in the hospital by nurses and staff experienced in neonatal care, Dr. Pantell said. The guideline also includes a key action statement to stop antimicrobials at 24-36 hours if cultures are negative, but to treat identified organisms.
 

Infants aged 22-28 days

In both the 22- to 28-day-old and 29- to 60-day-old groups, the guideline offers opportunities for less testing and treatment, such as avoiding a lumbar puncture, and fewer hospitalizations. The development of a separate guideline for the 22- to 28-day group is something new, said Dr. Pantell. The guideline states that clinicians should obtain urine specimens and blood culture, and should assess IM in this group. Further key action statements note that clinicians “should obtain a CSF if any IM is positive,” but “may” obtain CSF if the infant is hospitalized, if blood and urine cultures have been obtained, and if none of the IMs are abnormal.

As with younger patients, those with a negative CSF can go home, he said. As for treatment, clinicians “should” administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy to infants managed at home even if they have a negative CSF and urinalysis (UA), and no abnormal inflammatory markers Other points for management of infants in this age group at home include verbal teaching and written instructions for caregivers, plans for a re-evaluation at home in 24 hours, and a plan for communication and access to emergency care in case of a change in clinical status, Dr. Pantell explained. The guideline states that infants “should” be hospitalized if CSF is either not obtained or not interpretable, which leaves room for clinical judgment and individual circumstances. Antimicrobials “should” be discontinued in this group once all cultures are negative after 24-36 hours and no other infection requires treatment.
 

Infants aged 29-60 days

For the 29- to 60-day group, there are some differences, the main one is the recommendation of blood cultures in this group, said Dr. Pantell. “We are seeing a lot of UTIs [urinary tract infections], and we would like those treated.” However, clinicians need not obtain a CSF if other IMs are normal, but may do so if any IM is abnormal. Antimicrobial therapy may include ceftriaxone or cephalexin for UTIs, or vancomycin for bacteremia.

Although antimicrobial therapy is an option for UTIs and bacterial meningitis, clinicians “need not” use antimicrobials if CSF is normal, if UA is negative, and if no IMs are abnormal, Dr. Pantell added. Overall, further management of infants in this oldest age group should focus on discharge to home in the absence of abnormal findings, but hospitalization in the presence of abnormal CSF, IMs, or other concerns.

During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Roberts said that, while rectal temperature is preferable, any method is acceptable as a starting point for applying the guideline. Importantly, the guideline still leaves room for clinical judgment. “We hope this will change some thinking as far as whether one model fits all,” he noted. The authors tried to temper the word “should” with the word “may” when possible, so clinicians can say: “I’m going to individualize my decision to the infant in front of me.”

Ultimately, the guideline is meant as a guide, and not an absolute standard of care, the authors said. The language of the key action statements includes the words “should, may, need not” in place of “must, must not.” The guideline recommends factoring family values and preferences into any treatment decisions. “Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.”

The guideline received no outside funding. The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The long-anticipated American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for the treatment of well-appearing febrile infants have arrived, and key points include updated guidance for cerebrospinal fluid testing and urine cultures, according to Robert Pantell, MD, and Kenneth Roberts, MD, who presented the guidelines at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

The AAP guideline was published in the August 2021 issue of Pediatrics. The guideline includes 21 key action statements and 40 total recommendations, and describes separate management algorithms for three age groups: infants aged 8-21 days, 22-28 days, and 29-60 days.

Dr. Roberts, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Dr. Pantell, of the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized that all pediatricians should read the full guideline, but they offered an overview of some of the notable points.

Some changes that drove the development of evidence-based guideline included changes in technology, such as the increased use of procalcitonin, the development of large research networks for studies of sufficient size, and a need to reduce the costs of unnecessary care and unnecessary trauma for infants, Dr. Roberts said. Use of data from large networks such as the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network provided enough evidence to support dividing the aged 8- to 60-day population into three groups.

The guideline applies to well-appearing term infants aged 8-60 days and at least 37 weeks’ gestation, with fever of 38° C (100.4° F) or higher in the past 24 hours in the home or clinical setting. The decision to exclude infants in the first week of life from the guideline was because at this age, infants “are sufficiently different in rates and types of illness, including early-onset bacterial infection,” according to the authors.

Dr. Roberts emphasized that the guidelines apply to “well-appearing infants,” which is not always obvious. “If a clinician is not confident an infant is well appearing, the clinical practice guideline should not be applied,” he said.

The guideline also includes a visual algorithm for each age group.

Dr. Pantell summarized the key action statements for the three age groups, and encouraged pediatricians to review the visual algorithms and footnotes available in the full text of the guideline.

The guideline includes seven key action statements for each of the three age groups. Four of these address evaluations, using urine, blood culture, inflammatory markers (IM), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). One action statement focuses on initial treatment, and two on management: hospital admission versus monitoring at home, and treatment cessation.
 

Infants aged 8-21 days

The key action statements for well-appearing infants aged 8-21 days are similar to what clinicians likely would do for ill-appearing infants, the authors noted, based in part on the challenge of assessing an infant this age as “well appearing,” because they don’t yet have the ability to interact with the clinician.

For the 8- to 21-day group, the first two key actions are to obtain a urine specimen and blood culture, Dr. Pantell said. Also, clinicians “should” obtain a CSF for analysis and culture. “We recognize that the ability to get CSF quickly is a challenge,” he added. However, for the 8- to 21-day age group, a new feature is that these infants may be discharged if the CSF is negative. Evaluation in this youngest group states that clinicians “may assess inflammatory markers” including height of fever, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin.

Treatment of infants in the 8- to 21-day group “should” include parenteral antimicrobial therapy, according to the guideline, and these infants “should” be actively monitored in the hospital by nurses and staff experienced in neonatal care, Dr. Pantell said. The guideline also includes a key action statement to stop antimicrobials at 24-36 hours if cultures are negative, but to treat identified organisms.
 

Infants aged 22-28 days

In both the 22- to 28-day-old and 29- to 60-day-old groups, the guideline offers opportunities for less testing and treatment, such as avoiding a lumbar puncture, and fewer hospitalizations. The development of a separate guideline for the 22- to 28-day group is something new, said Dr. Pantell. The guideline states that clinicians should obtain urine specimens and blood culture, and should assess IM in this group. Further key action statements note that clinicians “should obtain a CSF if any IM is positive,” but “may” obtain CSF if the infant is hospitalized, if blood and urine cultures have been obtained, and if none of the IMs are abnormal.

As with younger patients, those with a negative CSF can go home, he said. As for treatment, clinicians “should” administer parenteral antimicrobial therapy to infants managed at home even if they have a negative CSF and urinalysis (UA), and no abnormal inflammatory markers Other points for management of infants in this age group at home include verbal teaching and written instructions for caregivers, plans for a re-evaluation at home in 24 hours, and a plan for communication and access to emergency care in case of a change in clinical status, Dr. Pantell explained. The guideline states that infants “should” be hospitalized if CSF is either not obtained or not interpretable, which leaves room for clinical judgment and individual circumstances. Antimicrobials “should” be discontinued in this group once all cultures are negative after 24-36 hours and no other infection requires treatment.
 

Infants aged 29-60 days

For the 29- to 60-day group, there are some differences, the main one is the recommendation of blood cultures in this group, said Dr. Pantell. “We are seeing a lot of UTIs [urinary tract infections], and we would like those treated.” However, clinicians need not obtain a CSF if other IMs are normal, but may do so if any IM is abnormal. Antimicrobial therapy may include ceftriaxone or cephalexin for UTIs, or vancomycin for bacteremia.

Although antimicrobial therapy is an option for UTIs and bacterial meningitis, clinicians “need not” use antimicrobials if CSF is normal, if UA is negative, and if no IMs are abnormal, Dr. Pantell added. Overall, further management of infants in this oldest age group should focus on discharge to home in the absence of abnormal findings, but hospitalization in the presence of abnormal CSF, IMs, or other concerns.

During a question-and-answer session, Dr. Roberts said that, while rectal temperature is preferable, any method is acceptable as a starting point for applying the guideline. Importantly, the guideline still leaves room for clinical judgment. “We hope this will change some thinking as far as whether one model fits all,” he noted. The authors tried to temper the word “should” with the word “may” when possible, so clinicians can say: “I’m going to individualize my decision to the infant in front of me.”

Ultimately, the guideline is meant as a guide, and not an absolute standard of care, the authors said. The language of the key action statements includes the words “should, may, need not” in place of “must, must not.” The guideline recommends factoring family values and preferences into any treatment decisions. “Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.”

The guideline received no outside funding. The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Traditionally, as the ides of August descend upon us we expect to be bombarded with advertisements encouraging parents and students to finish up their back-to-school shopping. But, this year the question on every parent and school administrator’s mind is not which color back pack will be the most popular this year but whether a mask should be a required part of the back-to-school ensemble.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that “All students older than 2 years and all school staff should wear a mask at school” (“American Academy of Pediatrics Updates Recommendations for Opening Schools in Fall 2021.” 2021 Jul 19). The academy’s statement includes a generous list of common sense caveats but it does not include a statement that masks have been shown to be protective for children in school environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “recommends” universal indoor masking along with keeping a 3-foot separation but again fails to include any references to support the effectiveness of masks (“Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools.” 2021 Aug 5).

Not surprisingly, into this void have stepped two pairs of experts – one group purporting to have evidence that masking is effective in school environments and the other warning that masks may not only be ineffective but that they also carry some significant downsides. And, where can you find these opposing positions? Not in The Lancet. Not in the New England Journal of Medicine. We don’t have time for any of that peer-reviewed monkey business. No, this is pandemic-era science where we have an abundance of opinions and paucity of facts. You will find these opposing articles on the op-ed pages of two of this country’s major newspapers.

In the Aug. 10, 2021, edition of the New York Times you will find an article (“We Studied One Million Students. This Is What We Learned About Masking”) by two pediatricians, Kanecia Zimmerman, MD, and Danny Benjamin Jr., MD, who have “studied” a million students in North Carolina school systems and tell us universal masking is “one of the most effective and efficient strategies for preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools. These investigators write that they “believe” the low rate of in school transmission they observed in North Carolina was “because of the mask-on-mask school environment.”

However, in the next paragraph the authors admit, “Because North Carolina had a mask mandate for all K-12 schools, we could not compare masked schools with unmasked schools.” They lean instead on studies from three other states with mask mandates that also had low transmission rates and a single report of an outbreak in Israel that employed neither masking nor safe distancing.

On the other side of the divide is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Case Against Masks for Children” by Marty Makary, MD, and H. Cody Meissner, MD, (2021 Aug 9). The authors, one a pediatric infectious disease specialist, argue that there is “no science behind mask mandates for children.” And, observe that, of the $46 billion spent on research grants by the National Institutes of Health, “not a single grant was dedicated to studying masking in children.”

Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner present a variety of concerns about the effects of masking including those on the development and communication skills of young children. None of their theoretical concerns of course are supported by controlled studies. They also observe that in previous studies children seem to be less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults. Although we all know the landscape is changing with the emergence of the delta strain. In their strongest statement the authors claim, “It is abusive to force kids who struggle with them [masks] to sacrifice for the sake of unvaccinated adults.”

So there you have it. It is a situation we have come to expect over the last 2 years – plenty of opinions and too few facts supported by controlled studies. Both pairs of authors, however, agree on two things: Vaccination should continue to be considered our primary tool in prevention and control of COVID-19. and children need to be in school. Based on nothing more than a hunch and 7 decades of hunching, I tend to side with Dr. Makary and Dr. Meissner. Depending on the situation, I suggest masking but wouldn’t mandate it for children in school.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

The International Committee on Perioperative Care for Children with Medical Complexity developed an online guide, “Deciding on and Preparing for Major Musculoskeletal Surgery in Children with Cerebral Palsy, Neurodevelopmental Disorders, and Other Medically Complex Conditions,” published on Dec. 20, 2020, detailing how to prepare pediatric patients with medical complexity prior to musculoskeletal surgery. The guide was developed from a dearth of information regarding optimal care practices for these patients.

The multidisciplinary committee included members from orthopedic surgery, general pediatrics, pediatric hospital medicine, anesthesiology, critical care medicine, pain medicine, physiotherapy, developmental and behavioral pediatrics, and families of children with cerebral palsy. Mirna Giordano, MD, FAAP, FHM, associate professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, and International Committee member, helped develop these recommendations to “improve quality of care in the perioperative period for children with medical complexities and neurodisabilities all over the world.”

The guide meticulously details the steps required to successfully prepare for an operation and postoperative recovery. It includes an algorithm and comprehensive assessment plan that can be implemented to assess and optimize the child’s health and wellbeing prior to surgery. It encourages shared decision making and highlights the need for ongoing, open communication between providers, patients, and families to set goals and expectations, discuss potential complications, and describe outcomes and the recovery process.

The module elaborates on several key factors that must be evaluated and addressed long before surgery to ensure success. Baseline nutrition is critical and must be evaluated with body composition and anthropometric measurements. Respiratory health must be assessed with consideration of pulmonology consultation, specific testing, and ventilator or assistive-device optimization. Moreover, children with innate muscular weakness or restrictive lung disease should have baseline physiology evaluated in anticipation of potential postoperative complications, including atelectasis, hypoventilation, and pneumonia. Coexisting chronic medical conditions must also be optimized in anticipation of expected deviations from baseline.

In anticipation of peri- and postoperative care, the medical team should also be aware of details surrounding patients’ indwelling medical devices, such as cardiac implantable devices and tracheostomies. Particular attention should be paid to baclofen pumps, as malfunction or mistitration can lead to periprocedural hypotension or withdrawal.

Of paramount importance is understanding how the child appears and responds when in pain or discomfort, especially for a child with limited verbal communication. The module provides pain assessment tools, tailored to verbal and nonverbal patients in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The module also shares guidance on establishing communication and goals with the family and within the care team on how the child appears when in distress and how he/she/they respond to pain medications. The pain plan should encompass both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapeutics. Furthermore, as pain and discomfort may present from multiple sources, not limited to the regions involved in the procedure, understanding how the child responds to urinary retention, constipation, dyspnea, and uncomfortable positions is important to care. Postoperative immobilization must also be addressed as it may lead to pressure injury, manifesting as behavioral changes.

The module also presents laboratory testing as part of the preoperative health assessment. It details the utility or lack thereof of several common practices and provides recommendations on components that should be part of each patient’s assessment. It also contains videos showcased from the Courage Parents Network on family and provider perceptions of spinal fusion.

Family and social assessments must not be neglected prior to surgery, as these areas may also affect surgical outcomes. The module shares several screening tools that care team members can use to screen for family and social issues. Challenges to discharge planning are also discussed, including how to approach transportation, medical equipment, and school transitions needs.

The module is available for review in OPEN Pediatrics (www.openpediatrics.org), an online community for pediatric health professionals who share peer-reviewed best practices. “Our aim is to disseminate the recommendations as widely as possible to bring about the maximum good to the most,” Dr. Giordano said. The International Committee on Perioperative Care for Children with Medical Complexity is planning further guides regarding perioperative care, particularly for intraoperative and postoperative considerations.

Dr. Tantoco is a med-peds hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics in Northwestern University, in Chicago. She is also a member of the SHM Pediatrics Special Interest Group Executive Committee. Dr. Bhasin is a med-peds hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, and assistant professor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics in Northwestern University.

The International Committee on Perioperative Care for Children with Medical Complexity developed an online guide, “Deciding on and Preparing for Major Musculoskeletal Surgery in Children with Cerebral Palsy, Neurodevelopmental Disorders, and Other Medically Complex Conditions,” published on Dec. 20, 2020, detailing how to prepare pediatric patients with medical complexity prior to musculoskeletal surgery. The guide was developed from a dearth of information regarding optimal care practices for these patients.

The multidisciplinary committee included members from orthopedic surgery, general pediatrics, pediatric hospital medicine, anesthesiology, critical care medicine, pain medicine, physiotherapy, developmental and behavioral pediatrics, and families of children with cerebral palsy. Mirna Giordano, MD, FAAP, FHM, associate professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, and International Committee member, helped develop these recommendations to “improve quality of care in the perioperative period for children with medical complexities and neurodisabilities all over the world.”

The guide meticulously details the steps required to successfully prepare for an operation and postoperative recovery. It includes an algorithm and comprehensive assessment plan that can be implemented to assess and optimize the child’s health and wellbeing prior to surgery. It encourages shared decision making and highlights the need for ongoing, open communication between providers, patients, and families to set goals and expectations, discuss potential complications, and describe outcomes and the recovery process.

The module elaborates on several key factors that must be evaluated and addressed long before surgery to ensure success. Baseline nutrition is critical and must be evaluated with body composition and anthropometric measurements. Respiratory health must be assessed with consideration of pulmonology consultation, specific testing, and ventilator or assistive-device optimization. Moreover, children with innate muscular weakness or restrictive lung disease should have baseline physiology evaluated in anticipation of potential postoperative complications, including atelectasis, hypoventilation, and pneumonia. Coexisting chronic medical conditions must also be optimized in anticipation of expected deviations from baseline.

In anticipation of peri- and postoperative care, the medical team should also be aware of details surrounding patients’ indwelling medical devices, such as cardiac implantable devices and tracheostomies. Particular attention should be paid to baclofen pumps, as malfunction or mistitration can lead to periprocedural hypotension or withdrawal.

Of paramount importance is understanding how the child appears and responds when in pain or discomfort, especially for a child with limited verbal communication. The module provides pain assessment tools, tailored to verbal and nonverbal patients in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The module also shares guidance on establishing communication and goals with the family and within the care team on how the child appears when in distress and how he/she/they respond to pain medications. The pain plan should encompass both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapeutics. Furthermore, as pain and discomfort may present from multiple sources, not limited to the regions involved in the procedure, understanding how the child responds to urinary retention, constipation, dyspnea, and uncomfortable positions is important to care. Postoperative immobilization must also be addressed as it may lead to pressure injury, manifesting as behavioral changes.

The module also presents laboratory testing as part of the preoperative health assessment. It details the utility or lack thereof of several common practices and provides recommendations on components that should be part of each patient’s assessment. It also contains videos showcased from the Courage Parents Network on family and provider perceptions of spinal fusion.

Family and social assessments must not be neglected prior to surgery, as these areas may also affect surgical outcomes. The module shares several screening tools that care team members can use to screen for family and social issues. Challenges to discharge planning are also discussed, including how to approach transportation, medical equipment, and school transitions needs.

The module is available for review in OPEN Pediatrics (www.openpediatrics.org), an online community for pediatric health professionals who share peer-reviewed best practices. “Our aim is to disseminate the recommendations as widely as possible to bring about the maximum good to the most,” Dr. Giordano said. The International Committee on Perioperative Care for Children with Medical Complexity is planning further guides regarding perioperative care, particularly for intraoperative and postoperative considerations.

Dr. Tantoco is a med-peds hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics in Northwestern University, in Chicago. She is also a member of the SHM Pediatrics Special Interest Group Executive Committee. Dr. Bhasin is a med-peds hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, and assistant professor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics in Northwestern University.

The International Committee on Perioperative Care for Children with Medical Complexity developed an online guide, “Deciding on and Preparing for Major Musculoskeletal Surgery in Children with Cerebral Palsy, Neurodevelopmental Disorders, and Other Medically Complex Conditions,” published on Dec. 20, 2020, detailing how to prepare pediatric patients with medical complexity prior to musculoskeletal surgery. The guide was developed from a dearth of information regarding optimal care practices for these patients.

The multidisciplinary committee included members from orthopedic surgery, general pediatrics, pediatric hospital medicine, anesthesiology, critical care medicine, pain medicine, physiotherapy, developmental and behavioral pediatrics, and families of children with cerebral palsy. Mirna Giordano, MD, FAAP, FHM, associate professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, and International Committee member, helped develop these recommendations to “improve quality of care in the perioperative period for children with medical complexities and neurodisabilities all over the world.”

The guide meticulously details the steps required to successfully prepare for an operation and postoperative recovery. It includes an algorithm and comprehensive assessment plan that can be implemented to assess and optimize the child’s health and wellbeing prior to surgery. It encourages shared decision making and highlights the need for ongoing, open communication between providers, patients, and families to set goals and expectations, discuss potential complications, and describe outcomes and the recovery process.

The module elaborates on several key factors that must be evaluated and addressed long before surgery to ensure success. Baseline nutrition is critical and must be evaluated with body composition and anthropometric measurements. Respiratory health must be assessed with consideration of pulmonology consultation, specific testing, and ventilator or assistive-device optimization. Moreover, children with innate muscular weakness or restrictive lung disease should have baseline physiology evaluated in anticipation of potential postoperative complications, including atelectasis, hypoventilation, and pneumonia. Coexisting chronic medical conditions must also be optimized in anticipation of expected deviations from baseline.

In anticipation of peri- and postoperative care, the medical team should also be aware of details surrounding patients’ indwelling medical devices, such as cardiac implantable devices and tracheostomies. Particular attention should be paid to baclofen pumps, as malfunction or mistitration can lead to periprocedural hypotension or withdrawal.

Of paramount importance is understanding how the child appears and responds when in pain or discomfort, especially for a child with limited verbal communication. The module provides pain assessment tools, tailored to verbal and nonverbal patients in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The module also shares guidance on establishing communication and goals with the family and within the care team on how the child appears when in distress and how he/she/they respond to pain medications. The pain plan should encompass both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapeutics. Furthermore, as pain and discomfort may present from multiple sources, not limited to the regions involved in the procedure, understanding how the child responds to urinary retention, constipation, dyspnea, and uncomfortable positions is important to care. Postoperative immobilization must also be addressed as it may lead to pressure injury, manifesting as behavioral changes.

The module also presents laboratory testing as part of the preoperative health assessment. It details the utility or lack thereof of several common practices and provides recommendations on components that should be part of each patient’s assessment. It also contains videos showcased from the Courage Parents Network on family and provider perceptions of spinal fusion.

Family and social assessments must not be neglected prior to surgery, as these areas may also affect surgical outcomes. The module shares several screening tools that care team members can use to screen for family and social issues. Challenges to discharge planning are also discussed, including how to approach transportation, medical equipment, and school transitions needs.

The module is available for review in OPEN Pediatrics (www.openpediatrics.org), an online community for pediatric health professionals who share peer-reviewed best practices. “Our aim is to disseminate the recommendations as widely as possible to bring about the maximum good to the most,” Dr. Giordano said. The International Committee on Perioperative Care for Children with Medical Complexity is planning further guides regarding perioperative care, particularly for intraoperative and postoperative considerations.

Dr. Tantoco is a med-peds hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, and instructor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics in Northwestern University, in Chicago. She is also a member of the SHM Pediatrics Special Interest Group Executive Committee. Dr. Bhasin is a med-peds hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, and assistant professor of medicine (hospital medicine) and pediatrics in Northwestern University.