Browsing by Author "Bressan, Silvia"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Preparedness and Response to Pediatric COVID-19 in European Emergency Departments : A Survey of the REPEM and PERUKI Networks
    (2020-12) Bressan, Silvia; Country Leads; Pucuka, Zanda
    Study objective: We aim to describe the variability and identify gaps in preparedness and response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in European emergency departments (EDs) caring for children. Methods: A cross-sectional point-prevalence survey was developed and disseminated through the pediatric emergency medicine research networks for Europe (Research in European Pediatric Emergency Medicine) and the United Kingdom and Ireland (Paediatric Emergency Research in the United Kingdom and Ireland). We aimed to include 10 EDs for countries with greater than 20 million inhabitants and 5 EDs for less populated countries, unless the number of eligible EDs was less than 5. ED directors or their delegates completed the survey between March 20 and 21 to report practice at that time. We used descriptive statistics to analyze data. Results: Overall, 102 centers from 18 countries (86% response rate) completed the survey: 34% did not have an ED contingency plan for pandemics and 36% had never had simulations for such events. Wide variation on personal protective equipment (PPE) items was shown for recommended PPE use at pretriage and for patient assessment, with 62% of centers experiencing shortage in one or more PPE items, most frequently FFP2 and N95 masks. Only 17% of EDs had negative-pressure isolation rooms. Coronavirus disease 2019–positive ED staff was reported in 25% of centers. Conclusion: We found variation and identified gaps in preparedness and response to the coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic across European referral EDs for children. A lack in early availability of a documented contingency plan, provision of simulation training, appropriate use of PPE, and appropriate isolation facilities emerged as gaps that should be optimized to improve preparedness and inform responses to future pandemics.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Research priorities for European paediatric emergency medicine
    (2019-09) Bressan, Silvia; Titomanlio, Luigi; Gomez, Borja; Mintegi, Santiago; Gervaix, Alain; Parri, Niccolo; Da Dalt, Liviana; Moll, Henriette A.; Waisman, Yehezkel; Maconochie, Ian K.; Oostenbrink, Rianne; Er, Anil; Anil, Murat; Bal, Alkan; Manzano, Sergio; Lacroix, Laurance; Galetto, Annick; Beattie, Tom; Bidlingmaier, Christoph; de Lucas, Nieves; Maranon, Rafael; Pucuka, Zanda; Loellgen, Ruth; Keitel, Kristina; Hoeffe, Julia; Geurts, Dorien; Dubos, Francois; Lyttle, Mark; Bognar, Zsolt; Simon, Gabor; Fodor, Laszlo; Romanengo, Marta; Gras-le-Guen, Christele; Greber-Platzer, Susanne; Cubells, Carles Luaces; Teksam, Ozlem; Turan, Caner; van de Voorde, Patrick; Basmaci, Romain; Frassanito, Antonella; Saz, Ulas; Irfanos, Ionannis; Sotoca, Jorge; Berant, Ron; Farrugia, Ruth; Velasco, Roberto; Nijman, Ruud; Macao, Patricia
    Objective Research in European Paediatric Emergency Medicine (REPEM) network is a collaborative group of 69 paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians from 20 countries in Europe, initiated in 2006. To further improve paediatric emergency care in Europe, the aim of this study was to define research priorities for PEM in Europe to guide the development of future research projects. Design and Setting We carried out an online survey in a modified three-stage Delphi study. Eligible participants were members of the REPEM network. In stage 1, the REPEM steering committee prepared a list of research topics. In stage 2, REPEM members rated on a 6-point scale research topics and they could add research topics and comment on the list for further refinement. Stage 3 included further prioritisation using the Hanlon Process of Prioritisation (HPP) to give more emphasis to the feasibility of a research topic. Results Based on 52 respondents (response rates per stage varying from 41% to 57%), we identified the conditions 'fever', 'sepsis' and 'respiratory infections', and the processes/interventions 'biomarkers', 'risk stratification' and 'practice variation' as common themes of research interest. The HPP identified highest priority for 4 of the 5 highest prioritised items by the Delphi process, incorporating prevalence and severity of each condition and feasibility of undertaking such research. Conclusions While the high diversity in emergency department (ED) populations, cultures, healthcare systems and healthcare delivery in European PEM prompts to focus on practice variation of ED conditions, our defined research priority list will help guide further collaborative research efforts within the REPEM network to improve PEM care in Europe.