Decreased Incidence of Hirschsprung-Associated Enterocolitis During COVID-19 Across United States Children's Hospitals

BackgroundThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic provided a natural experiment to study the effect of social distancing on the risk of developing Hirschsprung's Associated Enterocolitis (HAEC).MethodsUsing the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), a retrospective cohort study of children (<18 years) with Hirschsprung's Disease (HSCR) across 47 United States children's hospitals was performed. The primary outcome was HAEC admissions per 10,000 patient-days. The exposure (COVID-19) was defined as April 2020–December 2021. The unexposed (historical control) period was April 2018–December 2019. Secondary outcomes included sepsis, bowel perforation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality, and length of stay.ResultsOverall, we included 5707 patients with HSCR during the study period. There were 984 and 834 HAEC admissions during the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, respectively (2.6 vs. 1.9 HAEC admissions per 10,000 patient-days, incident rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.74 [0.67, 0.81], p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic, those with HAEC during the pandemic were younger (median [IQR]: 566 [162, 1430] days pandemic vs. 746 [259, 1609] days pre-pandemic, p < 0.001) and more likely to live in the lowest quartile of median household income zip codes (24% pandemic vs. 19% pre-pandemic, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in rates of sepsis (6.1% pandemic vs. 6.1% pre-pandemic, p > 0.9), bowel perforation (1.3% pandemic vs. 1.2% pre-pandemic, p = 0.8), ICU admissions (9.6% pandemic vs. 12% pre-pandemic, p = 0.2), mortality (0.5% pandemic vs. 0.6% pre-pandemic, p = 0.8), or length of stay (median [interquartile range]: 4 [(Pastor et al., 2009; Gosain and Brinkman, 2015) 2,112,11 days pandemic vs. 5 [(Pastor et al., 2009; Tang et al., 2020) 2,102,10 days pre-pandemic, p = 0.4).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significantly decreased incidence of HAEC admissions across US children's hospitals. Possible etiologies such as social distancing should be explored.Level of evidenceII.     

Paediatric gonad shielding in pelvic radiography: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionThe British Institute of Radiology (BIR) and American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have recommended that gonad shielding is no longer used during pelvic X-ray examinations. The BIR guidance states that shielding may still be considered for use on males, but should not be used on females. This paper aimed to evaluate if this decision was supported by evidence from practice, by comparing the accuracy of gonad shield placement in paediatric males and females.MethodsA systematic review of databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed was performed in February 2021. Studies were considered eligible if they provided data on the use of gonad shielding during pelvic X-ray examinations on male and female patients under the age of 18. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and data extraction was performed. Quality appraisal was undertaken, and a meta-analysis of shielding accuracy was performed on seven studies.ResultsThe results from the meta-analysis (2187 total radiographs) demonstrated that female patients were significantly more likely (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.88–1.87) than males to have gonad shields placed inaccurately (p value < 0.001).ConclusionGonad shield placement on paediatric female patients is significantly less accurate than on males, and so the results support the AAPM and BIR guidance to stop the practice for females. Shield application may also be frequently inaccurate for males, but the review does not provide clear evidence for or against continuing the practice for males.Implications for practiceDiscontinuing the use of gonad shields in paediatric pelvic radiography on female patients is supported. Any continued use on male patients, or for reasons such as psychological reassurance, should be subject to enhanced training and audit to ensure benefits outweigh any risks.     

Understanding Hispanic Patient Satisfaction with Telehealth During COVID-19

BackgroundRecent studies have described the use of telehealth for pediatric surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate equity in telehealth use by comparing rates of utilization and satisfaction with pediatric surgical telemedicine among Hispanic patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients seen by a surgical subspecialty provider in the outpatient setting at a quaternary pediatric hospital between April 1 and June 30, 2020. Patients evaluated in the same three-month period in 2019 were analyzed as a historic control. Differences in Family Experience Survey (FES) responses based on race and ethnicity and preferred language of care were assessed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear modeling.ResultsThe pandemic cohort included fewer patients of Hispanic ethnicity and fewer Spanish-speakers. After controlling for visit type, comparison of Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients revealed that Spanish-speaking families had significantly lower scores for FES items that evaluated healthcare provider explaining (IRR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61–0.90), listening (IRR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63–0.92), and time spent with the family (IRR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60–0.89). There were no differences in FES responses based on insurance status or degree of medical complexity.ConclusionsTelehealth services were less commonly used among Hispanic and Spanish-speaking patients. Language may differentially affect family satisfaction with healthcare and telehealth solutions. Strategies to mitigate these inequities are needed and may include strengthening interpreter services and providing language-concordant care.Level of evidenceLevel IV.