Introduction: Digital distraction is being integrated into pediatric pain care, but its efficacy is currently unknown. We conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of digital technology distraction on pain and distress for children experiencing acutely painful conditions or medical procedures. Methods: We searched eight online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, Ei Compendex, Web of Science), grey literature sources, scanned reference lists, and contacted experts for quantitative studies where digital technologies were used as distraction for acutely painful conditions or procedures in children. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers with consensus. One reviewer extracted relevant study data and another verified it for accuracy. Appraisal of risk of bias within studies and the certainty of the body of evidence were performed independently in duplicate, with the final appraisal determined by consensus. The primary outcomes of interest were child pain and distress. Results: Of 3247 unique records identified by the search, we included 106 studies (n = 7820) that reported on digital technology distractors (e.g., virtual reality; videogames) used during common procedures (e.g., venipuncture, minor dental procedures, burn treatments). We located no studies reporting on painful conditions. For painful procedures, digital distraction resulted in a modest but clinically important reduction in self-reported pain (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.29, 46 RCTs, n = 3200), observer-reported pain (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.45, 17 RCTs, n = 1199), behavioural pain (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.19, 19 RCTs, n = 1173), self-reported distress (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27, 19 RCTs, n = 1818), observer-reported distress (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.17, 10 RCTs, n = 826), and behavioural distress (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.12, 17 RCTs, n = 1264) compared to usual care. Few studies directly compared different distractors or provided subgroup data to inform applicability. Conclusion: Digital distraction provides modest pain and distress reduction for children undergoing painful procedures; its superiority over non-digital distractors is not established. Healthcare providers and parents should strongly consider using distractions as a pain-reduction strategy for children and teens during common painful procedures (e.g., needle pokes, dental fillings). Context, child preference, and availability should inform the choice of distractor.

Introduction: Fractures are a common childhood presentation to the emergency department (ED). While ED providers are aware of treating pain, we are less aware of the functional impact of these fractures. Eighty percent of children with a fracture experience compromise in their daily function. Understanding the functional outcomes of fractures will help optimize discharge instructions for at-home care. The primary objective of our study was to describe caregivers' perspectives on the impact of their child's fracture on: (1) child functioning, (2) caregiver functioning and (3) family life. Methods: We performed a qualitative study interviewing caregivers of children (5 to 11 years) who received care for acute (< 24 hours old), non-operative long bone fractures at a Canadian tertiary care pediatric ED. Audio-recorded, semi-structured telephone interviews were completed 1-2 weeks post-ED visit, until thematic saturation was achieved. Transcripts were read and coded by two researchers concurrent with data collection. We applied content analysis to the interview material, explicating themes to summarize the data utilizing NVivo software. Results: Twenty-five interviews were completed. Most children (23/25) suffered upper extremity fractures and most participants were mothers (21/25). All caregivers reported a change in their child's function. The most commonly affected areas included: sleep, play and activities of daily living (ADL's; ie. dressing, bathing, eating). Children were impacted by pain and related negative emotional responses. All children required additional help from their caregivers to carry out ADL's. Strategies included changing household routines and missing work. Importantly, caregivers described a disrupted family dynamic. Adapting to their injured child's functional deficits and caring for pain and distress took time and attention away from the household's previously well-functioning routine. This burden was felt by all family members. Key concerns from caregivers included pain management, fracture healing/complications, and regression of their child's independence. Conclusion: Function is universally impaired in younger children with fractures. We suggest 5 main points to include in discharge instructions: (1) monitoring pain and providing analgesia, (2) helping children with ADL's, even if previously independent, (3) allotting extra time for morning and bedtime routines, (4) offering safe choices for play and (5) coaching children in positive thinking and problem-solving.

Introduction: Needle-related procedures are considered the most important source of pain and distress in children in hospital settings. Time constraints, heavy workload, busy and noisy environment represent barriers to the use of available interventions for pain management during needle-related procedures. Therefore, the use of a rapid, easy-to-use intervention could improve procedural pain management practices. The objective was to determine if a device combining cold and vibration (Buzzy) is non-inferior (no worse) to a topical anesthetic (Maxilene) for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures in the Emergency Department (ED). Methods: This study was a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. We enrolled children aged between 4-17 years presenting to the ED and requiring a needle-related procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to the Buzzy or Maxilene group. The primary outcome was the mean difference in pain intensity during the procedure, as measured with the CAS (0-10). Secondary outcomes were procedural distress, success of the procedure at first-attempt and satisfaction of parents. Results: A total of 352 participants were enrolled and 346 were randomized (Buzzy = 172; Maxilene = 174). Mean difference in procedural pain scores between groups was 0.64 (95%CI -0.1 to 1.3), showing that the Buzzy device was not non-inferior to Maxilene according to a non-inferiority margin of 0.70. No significant differences were observed for procedural distress (p = .370) and success of the procedure at first attempt (p = .602). Parents of both groups were very satisfied with both interventions (Buzzy = 7.8 ±2.66; Maxilene = 8.1 ±2.4), but there was no significant difference between groups (p = .236). Conclusion: Non-inferiority of the Buzzy device over a topical anesthetic was not demonstrated for pain management of children during a needle-related procedure in the ED. However, considering that topical anesthetics are underused in the ED setting and require time, the Buzzy device seems to be a promising alternative as it is a rapid, low-cost, easy-to-use and reusable intervention.

Introduction: Given the current opioid crisis, caregivers have mounting fears regarding use of opioid medication in their children. Since caregivers are often the gatekeepers to their children's pain management, understanding their perspectives on analgesics is essential. For caregivers of children with acute injury presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED), we aimed to determine caregivers’: a) willingness to accept opioids from emergency care providers, b) reasons for refusing opioids, and c) past experiences with opioids. Methods: A novel 31-item electronic survey was offered, via tablet device, to caregivers of children aged 4-16 years who had a musculoskeletal injury <7 days old and presented to one of two Canadian PEDs between March and November 2017. Primary outcome was caregiver willingness to accept opioids for moderate pain for their children. Results: 517 caregivers completed the survey; mean age was 40.9 +/−7 years with 70.0% (362/517) being mothers. Children included 62.2% (321/516) males with an overall mean age of 10 +/−3.6 years. 49.6% of caregivers (254/512) reported willingness to accept opioids for moderate pain that persisted after non-opioid analgesia, while 37.1% (190/512) were unsure what they would do. Only 33.2% (170/512) of caregivers stated they would accept opioid analgesia upon discharge while 45.5% (233/512) were unsure about at-home use. Caregivers were primarily concerned about side effects, overdose, addiction, and masking of diagnosis. Caregiver fear of addiction (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25) and side effects (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11-1.42) increased the odds of rejecting opioids in the emergency department, while fears of addiction (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.32) and overdose (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.27) increased the odds of rejecting opioids for at-home use. Conclusion: Only half of caregivers reported that they would accept opioids for moderate pain, despite ongoing pain following non-opioid analgesics. Caregiver fears of addiction, side effects, overdose, and masking their child's diagnosis influence their behaviours. These findings are a first step in understanding caregiver decision-making and can guide healthcare providers in their conversations about acute pain treatment with families.

Introduction: Although oral rehydration therapy is recommended for children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) with none to some dehydration, intravenous (IV) rehydration is still commonly administered to these children in high-income countries. IV rehydration is associated with pain, anxiety, and emergency department (ED) revisits in children with AGE. A better understanding of the factors associated with IV rehydration is needed to inform knowledge translation strategies. Methods: This was a planned secondary analysis of the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) and Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) randomized, controlled trials of oral probiotics in children with AGE-associated diarrhea. Eligible children were aged 3-48 months and reported > 3 watery stools in a 24-hour period. The primary outcome was administration of IV rehydration at the index ED visit. We used mixed-effects logistic regression model to explore univariable and multivariable relationships between IV rehydration and a priori risk factors. Results: From the parent study sample of 1848 participants, 1846 had data available for analysis: mean (SD) age of 19.1 ± 11.4 months, 45.4% females. 70.2% (1292/1840) vomited within 24 hours of the index ED visit and 34.1% (629/1846) received ondansetron in the ED. 13.0% (240/1846) were administered IV rehydration at the index ED visit, and 3.6% (67/1842) were hospitalized. Multivariable predictors of IV rehydration were Clinical Dehydration Scale (CDS) score [compared to none: mild to moderate (OR: 8.1, CI: 5.5-11.8); severe (OR: 45.9, 95% CI: 20.1-104.7), P < 0.001], ondansetron in the ED (OR: 1.8, CI: 1.2-2.6, P = 0.003), previous healthcare visit for the same illness [compared to no prior visit: prior visit with no IV (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-2.9); prior visit with IV (OR: 10.5, 95% CI: 3.2-34.8), P < 0.001], and country [compared to Canada: US (OR: 4.1, CI: 2.3-7.4, P < 0.001]. Significantly more participants returned to the ED with symptoms of AGE within 3 days if IV fluids were administered at the index visit [30/224 (13.4%) versus 88/1453 (6.1%), P < 0.001]. Conclusion: Higher CDS scores, antiemetic use, previous healthcare visits and country were independent predictors of IV rehydration which was also associated with increased ED revisits. Knowledge translation focused on optimizing the use of antiemetics (i.e. for those with dehydration) and reducing the geographic variation in IV rehydration use may improve the ED experience and reduce ED-revisits.

Introduction: Although acute gastroenteritis is an extremely common childhood illness, there is a paucity of literature characterizing the associated pain and its management. Our primary objective was to quantify the pain experienced by children with acute gastroenteritis in the 24-hours prior to emergency department (ED) presentation. Secondary objectives included describing maximum pain, analgesic use, discharge recommendations, and factors that influenced analgesic use in the ED. Methods: Study participants were recruited into this prospective cohort study by the Alberta Provincial Pediatric EnTeric Infection TEam between January 2014 and September 2017. This study was conducted at two Canadian pediatric EDs; the Alberta Children's Hospital (Calgary) and the Stollery Children's Hospital (Edmonton). Eligibility criteria included < 18 years of age, acute gastroenteritis (□ 3 episodes of diarrhea or vomiting in the previous 24 hours), and symptom duration □ 7 days. The primary study outcome, caregiver-reported maximum pain in the 24-hours prior to presentation, was assessed using the 11-point Verbal Numerical Rating Scale. Results: We recruited 2136 patients, median age 20.8 months (IQR 10.4, 47.4); 45.8% (979/2136) female. In the 24-hours prior to enrolment, 28.6% (610/2136) of caregivers reported that their child experienced moderate (4-6) and 46.2% (986/2136) severe (7-10) pain in the preceding 24-hours. During the emergency visit, 31.1% (664/2136) described pain as moderate and 26.7% (571/2136) as severe. In the ED, analgesia was provided to 21.2% (452/2131) of children. The most commonly administered analgesics in the ED were ibuprofen (68.1%, 308/452) and acetaminophen (43.4%, 196/452); at home, acetaminophen was most commonly administered (77.7%, 700/901), followed by ibuprofen (37.5%, 338/901). Factors associated with analgesia use in the ED were greater pain scores during the visit, having a primary-care physician, shorter illness duration, fewer diarrheal episodes, presence of fever and hospitalization. Conclusion: Although children presenting to the ED with acute gastroenteritis experience moderate to severe pain, both prior to and during their emergency visit, analgesic use is limited. Future research should focus on appropriate pain management through the development of effective and safe pain treatment plans.

Introduction: There is abundant evidence that in children, assessment and pharmacologic treatment of pain by prehospital providers is suboptimal. Most paediatric calls are performed by primary care paramedics who are unable to administer pharmacologic analgesia to children but can administer non-pharmacologic therapies. We sought to describe the proportion of children provided non-pharmacologic analgesia by prehospital providers. Methods: We reviewed all ambulance call reports (ACR) of children age 0-17 years with an acutely painful condition (headache, abdominal pain, possible fracture, head/ears/eyes/nose/throat pain, back pain, and unclassified pain) who were transported to the Children's Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre between 2008 and 2017. We excluded ACRs lacking data pertaining to the primary outcome. Data collection was recorded by two blinded assessors using a study-specific ExcelTM sheet. The primary outcome was the proportion of children offered non-pharmacologic analgesia. We performed a hierarchical stepwise logistic regression on the primary outcome using covariates defined a priori: age, sex, visible deformity, documentation of pain score, and complaint. Results: Of 19782 ACRS, we report the preliminary results of 500 ACRs reviewed from Jan 1 to Feb 22, 2016. Of the 403 ACRs eligible for analysis, the median (IQR) age was 13 (8) years and 174 (43.2%) were females. 309/403 (76.7%) calls involved primary (as opposed to advanced) care paramedics. Pain assessments were performed in 171/403 (42.4%) calls, most commonly the 0-10 verbal numeric rating scale [128/171 (74.8%)] and the median (IQR) score was 7 (4) (n = 128). Non-pharmacologic analgesia was offered in 72/403 (17.9%) of calls, most commonly ice (37/72, 51%) and splint (29/72, 40%). In the multivariate model, significant predictors of non-pharmacologic analgesia included older age (OR 1.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.2; p = 0.01) and visible deformity (OR 8.2; 95% CI: 2.5, 30.2; p = 0.001). Sex (p = 0.62), documentation of pain score (p = 0.81), and complaint (p = 0.05) were not significant predictors. Conclusion: In this preliminary analysis, the provision of non-pharmacologic analgesia to children in Southwestern Ontario by prehospital providers was suboptimal despite moderate to severe levels of pain. Less than half of patients had pain assessments documented. There is a clear need for education surrounding pain assessment and non-pharmacologic analgesic options in children among prehospital providers.

Introduction: Intranasal ketamine (INK) has an emerging role for procedural sedation (PSA) in children in the emergency department (ED). While INK is less invasive and requires fewer personnel than IV ketamine, widespread adoption in the paediatric ED would require strong nursing acceptance. To inform INK implementation strategies, we explored nursing perspectives surrounding INK, including perceived barriers to its adoption. Methods: Nurses in the paediatric ED of London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario were recruited by email. Two, one-hour, in-person focus groups were conducted on January 26 and February 2, 2018 using a semi-structured interview format. Transcription was performed by a professional medical transcription service and analyzed using an inductive qualitative approach involving code words corresponding to recurring topics. Thematic analysis was used to group similar codes into themes. The analytic process was managed using the NVivo 11 software package. Results: Results: Eight nurses participated. All nurses were female and had a mean of 8.9 (range: 2.5 - 26) years of pediatric emergency nursing experience. Seven nurses had experience monitoring and administering INK to children for PSA. Five themes emerged: 1) attributes of INK, 2) INK effects on patients and families, 3) INK effects on health care providers, 4) INK effects on the ED environment, and 5) uncertainty regarding INK's effectiveness, predictability, and fit into institutional sedation protocols. Subthemes included 1) perceptions that INK produced a relatively shallower, slower-onset, and/or less titratable sedation, 2) the importance of patient cooperation (i.e. INK may be preferred by providers for older patients undergoing relatively painful or long procedures), 3) belief that INK was an effective anxiolytic and sedative with the potential to improve nursing resource utilization, and 4) belief that physician resistance to change and lack of personal familiarity were barriers to adoption. Conclusion: Conclusions: We identified clinical advantages to using INK in children, the importance of selecting appropriate patients, and barriers to widespread INK adoption. Importantly, our findings highlighted uncertainty about INK's effectiveness and incorporation into sedation protocols. Our findings will inform future knowledge translation strategies when implementing INK in the clinical setting.

Introduction: Abdominal pain is one of the most frequent reasons for an emergency department (ED) visit. Most cases are functional and no therapy has proven effective. Our objective was to determine if hyoscine butylbromide (HBB) (BuscopanTM) is effective for children who present to the ED with functional abdominal pain. Methods: We conducted a randomized, blinded, superiority trial comparing HBB 10 mg plus acetaminophen placebo to oral acetaminophen 15 mg/kg (max 975 mg) plus HBB placebo using a double-dummy approach. We included children 8-17 years presenting to the ED at London Health Sciences Centre with colicky abdominal pain rated >40 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The primary outcome was VAS pain score at 80 minutes post-administration. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects; caregiver satisfaction with pain management using a five-item Likert scale; recidivism and missed surgical diagnoses within 24-hours of discharge. Analysis was based on intention to treat. Results: We analyzed 225 participants (112 acetaminophen; 113 HBB). The mean (SD) age was 12.4 (3.0) years and 148/225 (65.8%) were females. Prior to enrollment, the median (IQR) duration of pain prior was 2 (4.5) hours and analgesia was provided to 101/225 (44.9%) of participants. The mean (SD) pre-intervention pain scores in the acetaminophen and HBB groups were 62.7 (15.9) mm and 60.3 (17.3) mm, respectively. At 80 minutes, the mean (SD) pain scores in the acetaminophen and HBB groups were 30.1 (28.8) mm and 29.4 (26.4) mm, respectively and there were no significant differences adjusting for pre-intervention scores (p = 0.96). The median (IQR) caregiver satisfaction was high in the acetaminophen [5 (2)] and HBB [5 (1)] groups (p = 0.79). The median (IQR) length of stay between acetaminophen [235 (101)] and HBB [234 (103)] was not significantly different (p = 0.53). The proportion of participants with a return visit for abdominal pain was 4/112 (3.5%) in the acetaminophen group and 6/113 (5.3%) in the HBB group. The most common adverse effect was nausea (9% in each group) and there were no significant differences in adverse effects between acetaminophen (26/112, 23.2%) and HBB (31/113, 27.4%) (p = 0.52). There were no missed surgical diagnoses. Conclusion: For children with presumed functional abdominal pain who present to the ED, both acetaminophen and HBB produce a clinically important (VAS < 30 mm) reduction in pain and should be routinely considered in this clinical setting.

Introduction: Intranasal dexmedetomidine (IND) is an emerging agent for procedural distress in children. However, studies to date have been limited by small samples and imprecise estimates of effect size. We sought to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of IND for procedures associated with distress in children. Methods: We performed electronic searches of MEDLINE (1946-2018), EMBASE (1980-2018), Google Scholar (2018), CINAHL (1981-2018), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2018), 6 clinical trials registries and conference proceedings (2010-2018). Title searches, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessments were performed in duplicate. We included all published and unpublished, randomized and quasi-randomized trials of IND for procedures in children younger than 19 years of age without language restriction. The methodological quality of studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that were deemed to be adequately sedated for the procedure. Results: Of 661 studies, 18 met inclusion criteria. Trials involved 2128 participants, age 1 month - 14 years (836, 39.3% females), who received IND 1 - 4 mcg/kg either by drops (n = 12), atomizer (n = 4), or both (n = 2). 12 trials were eligible for meta-analysis. 13 trials used validated instruments to assess sedation. All studies except one were associated with low or moderate risk of bias. For painful procedures (IV insertion; laceration repair; dental extraction), the pooled OR (95% CI) for adequate sedation and need for additional analgesia was non-significant [1.19 (0.53, 2.65)] and [2.16 (0.62, 7.49)], respectively (n = 5). For non-painful procedures (diagnostic imaging), the corresponding pooled OR (95% CI) favored IND [3.04 (1.58, 5.82)] and [4.44 (2.11, 9.35)], respectively (n = 7). Time to onset and duration of sedation ranged from 13-31 minutes and 41-91.5 minutes, respectively. For adverse effects, the pooled OR (95% CI) was not significantly different between IND and comparators [0.58 (0.22, 1.55] and there were no serious adverse events. Conclusion: IND at doses 1 to 4 mcg/kg are safe and adequately sedate children undergoing non-painful procedures, although the ease of administration must be weighed against the risk of prolonged sedation. Additional trials with larger sample sizes and greater methodologic rigor are needed for painful emergency department procedures such as laceration repair and IV insertion.

Introduction: In children, acute otitis media (AOM) pain is undertreated. We sought to determine if video discharge instructions were associated with improved symptomatology, functional outcomes, and knowledge compared to a paper handout. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled superiority trial comparing video discharge instructions (Easy Sketch Pro3TM) on management of pain to a paper handout detailing the same. We included caregivers of children 6 months to 5 years presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a clinical diagnosis of AOM. The primary outcome was symptomatology using the Acute Otitis Media Severity of Symptom (AOM SOS) score between 48 and 72 hours. The 7-item self-report AOM-SOS is scored from 0 to 13 with a higher score indicating more symptomatology. Secondary outcomes included knowledge gain using a 10-item survey, days of daycare/school/work missed, and recidivism. Assuming a minimal clinically important AOM-SOS difference of 2, 90% power, and 5% alpha, 60 individuals/group was needed. Results: 219 caregivers were randomized and 149 completed the 72-hour follow-up (72 paper and 77 video). The median (IQR) AOM-SOS score in the video group (adjusted for pre-intervention AOM-SOS, analgesic and antibiotic use) was significantly lower than paper [8 (7,11) versus 10 (7,13), respectively, p=0.004]. There were no significant differences between video and paper in the mean (SD) knowledge score [9.2 (1.3) versus 8.8 (1.8) correct answers, respectively, p=0.07], mean (SD) number that returned to a health provider [8/77 versus 10/72, respectively, p=0.49), mean (SD) number of daycare/schooldays missed [1.2 (1.5) versus 1.1 (2.1), respectively, p=0.62], and mean (SD) number of workdays missed by caregiver [0.5 (1) versus 0.8 (2), respectively, p=0.05]. Conclusion: Video discharge instructions are associated with less symptomatology compared to a paper handout, are effective for caregiver education in the ED, and should be used routinely.

Introduction: Inadequate pain management in children is ubiquitous in the emergency department (ED). As the current national opioid crisis has highlighted, physicians are caught between balancing pain management and the risk of long term opioid dependence. This study aimed to describe pediatric emergency physicians (PEPs) willingness to prescribe opioids to children in the ED and at discharge. Methods: A unique survey tool was created using published methodology guidelines. Information regarding practices, knowledge, attitudes, perceived barriers, facilitators and demographics were collected. The survey was distributed to all physician members of Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC), using a modified Dillmans Tailored Design method, from October to December 2017. Results: The response rate was 49.7% (124/242); 53% (57/107) were female, mean age was 43.6 years (+/− 8.7), and 58% (72/124) had pediatric emergency subspecialty training. The most common first line ED pain medication was ibuprofen for mild, moderate and severe musculoskeletal injury (MSK-I)-related pain (94.4% (117/124), 89.5% (111/124), and 62.9% (78/124), respectively). For moderate and severe MSK-I, intranasal fentanyl was the most common opioid for first (35.5% (44/124) and 61.3% (76/124), respectively) and second line pain management (41.1% (51/124) and 20.2% (25/124), respectively). 74.8% (89/119) of PEPs reported that an opioid protocol would be helpful, specifically for morphine, fentanyl, and hydromorphone. Using a 0-100 scale, physicians minimally worried about physical dependence (13.3 +/−19.3), addiction (16.6 +/−19.8), and diversion of opioids (32.8+/−26.4) when prescribing short-term opioids to children. They reported that the current opioid crisis minimally influenced their willingness to prescribe opioids (30.0 +/−26.2). Physicians reported rarely (36%; 45/125) or never (28%; 35/125) completing a screening risk assessment prior to prescribing opioids. Conclusion: Ibuprofen remains the most common medication recommended for MSK-I pain in the ED and at discharge. Intranasal fentanyl was the top opioid for all pain intensities. PEPs are minimally concerned regarding dependence, addiction, and the current opioid crisis when prescribing short-term opioids to children. There is an urgent need for robust evidence regarding the dependence and addiction risk for children receiving short term opioids in order to create knowledge translation tools for ED physicians. Opioid specific protocols for both in the ED and at discharge would likely improve physician comfort in responsible and adequate pain management for children.

Introduction: Gastroenteritis accounts for 1.7 million emergency department visits by children annually in the United States. We conducted a double-blind trial to determine whether twice daily probiotic administration for 5 days, improves outcomes. Methods: 886 children aged 348 months with gastroenteritis were enrolled in six Canadian pediatric emergency departments. Participants were randomly assigned to twice daily Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011 and Lactobacillus helveticus R0052, 4.0 x 109 CFU, in a 95:5 ratio or placebo. Primary outcome was development of moderate-severe disease within 14 days of randomization defined by a Modified Vesikari Scale score 9. Secondary outcomes included duration of diarrhea and vomiting, subsequent physician visits and adverse events. Results: Moderate-severe disease occurred in 108 (26.1%) participants administered probiotics and 102 (24.7%) participants allocated to placebo (OR 1.06; 95%CI: 0.77, 1.46; P=0.72). After adjustment for site, age, and frequency of vomiting and diarrhea, treatment assignment did not predict moderate-severe disease (OR, 1.11, 95%CI, 0.80 to 1.56; P=0.53). In the probiotic versus placebo groups, there were no differences in the median duration of diarrhea [52.5 (18.3, 95.8) vs. 55.5 (20.2, 102.3) hours; P=0.31], vomiting [17.7 (0, 58.6) vs. 18.7 (0, 51.6) hours; P=0.18], physician visits (30.2% vs. 26.6%; OR 1.19; 95% CI0.87. 1.62; P=0.27), or adverse events (32.9% vs. 36.8%; OR 0.83; 95%CI 0.62. 1.11; P=0.21). Conclusion: In children presenting to an emergency department with gastroenteritis, twice daily administration of 4.0 x 109 CFU of a Lactobacillus rhamnosus/helveticus probiotic does not prevent development of moderate-severe disease or improvements in other outcomes measured.

Background: Children with abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) are at particular risk of suboptimal analgesia due to fears of missing appendicitis and absent guidelines. Many still experience pain at discharge. Acetaminophen is the most commonly used analgesic and efficacy of hyoscine butylbromide (HBB) is supported by adult evidence. However, no evidence exists for either agent in children with abdominal pain. Objective: To determine if HBB is superior to acetaminophen for abdominal pain in children. Methods: We will consecutively recruit children 8-17 years presenting to the ED with presumed non-surgical abdominal pain rated >4/10 on the Faces Pain Scale – Revised (FPS-R) and described as colicky, excluding:-Suspected appendicitis or bowel obstruction-Anticholinergic, analgesic, or antispasmodic <12 hours-Peritoneal inflammation-Unable to swallow pills-Hypersensitivity to either intervention-Medically unstable-Previous bowel obstruction, abdominal surgery, myasthenia gravis, liver disease, glaucoma, or recent abdominal trauma (<48 hours)-Toxin ingestion (<24 hours)-Vomiting-Pregnancy Randomization and allocation concealment will be pharmacy-controlled and performed using a computerized random number generator and sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes, respectively. The physician, research assistant, nurse, and participant will be blinded. Due to perceptible differences, participants will be randomized in a double-dummy approach to:-HBB 10 mg tablet + acetaminophen placebo OR-Acetaminophen 15 mg/kg liquid (maximum 975 mg) + HBB placebo. The primary outcome will be the difference from baseline on the FPS-R at 120 minutes, reflecting HBB’s time to peak plasma concentration. The FPS-R has been validated in children >five years. Secondary outcomes include:-Pain scores at 15, 30, 45, 60, 80, 100, and 120 minutes post-intervention (FPS-R and 100 mm visual analog scale)-Discharge pain score-Rescue analgesia-Time to achieve a 20% reduction in pain-Adverse effects-Recidivism <48 hours-Missed surgical diagnoses (National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) database)-Caregiver satisfaction (five-item Likert scale). Using the intention to treat principle, ordinal, ratio, and categorical data will be analyzed using the Mann-Whitney, paired t-test, and Pearson’s chi-square, respectively and summarized using 95% confidence intervals. Assuming a standard deviation of 2 faces, 83 children per group will be required to detect a 1-face difference at 5% significance with 90% power. Increasing by 20% equals 100 participants per group. P values <0.05 will be considered significant. An institutional audit revealed 380 eligible patients per year during research assistant availability. Given a 30% refusal rate, we expect five participants enrolled per week for 40 weeks. Importance: Our findings will guide evidence-based analgesic choices for children with non-surgical abdominal pain in the ED.

Introduction: The suboptimal management of children’s pain in the emergency department (ED) is well described. Although surveys of physicians show improvements in providing analgesia, institutional audits suggest otherwise. One reason may be patient refusal. Our objectives were to determine the proportion of caregivers that offered analgesia prior to arrival to the ED, accept analgesia in the ED, and identify reasons for withholding analgesia. Our results will inform knowledge translation initiatives to improve analgesic provision to children. Methods: A novel survey was designed to test the hypothesis that a large proportion of caregivers withhold and refuse analgesia. Over a 16-week period across two Canadian paediatric EDs, we surveyed caregivers of children aged 4-17 years with an acutely painful condition (headache, otalgia, sore throat, abdominal pain, or musculoskeletal injury). The primary outcome was the proportion of caregivers who offered analgesia up to 24 hours prior to ED arrival and accepted analgesia in the ED. Results: The response rate was 568/707 (80.3%). The majority of caregivers were female (426/568, 75%), aged 36 years or older (434/568, 76.4%), and had a post-secondary education (448/561, 79.9%). Their children included 320 males and 248 females with a mean age of 10.6 years. Most (514/564, 91.1%) reported being “able to tell when their child was in pain”. On average, children rated their maximal pain at 7.4/10. A total of 382/561 (68.1%) caregivers did not offer any form of analgesia prior to arrival. Common reasons included lack of time (124/561, 22.1%), fear of masking signs and symptoms (74/561, 13.2%) or the seriousness of their child’s condition (72/561, 12.8%), and lack of analgesia at home (71/561, 12.7%). Analgesia was offered to 328/560 (58.6%) children in the ED and 283/328 (72.6%) caregivers accepted. The most common reason for not accepting analgesia was child refusal (20/45, 44.4%). Conclusion: Most caregivers do not offer analgesia to their child prior to arriving in the ED despite high levels of pain and an awareness of it. Despite high rates of acceptance of analgesia in the ED, misconceptions are common. Knowledge translation strategies should dispel caregiver misconceptions, and highlight the impact of pain on children and the importance of analgesia at home.