Data on best practices for evacuating an intensive care unit (ICU) during a disaster are limited. The impact of Hurricane Sandy on New York City area hospitals provided a unique opportunity to learn from the experience of ICU providers about their preparedness, perspective, roles, and activities.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians who played direct roles during the Hurricane Sandy ICU evacuations.

Sixty-eight health care professionals from 4 evacuating hospitals completed surveys (35% ICU nurses, 21% respiratory therapists, 25% physicians-in-training, and 13% attending physicians). Only 21% had participated in an ICU evacuation drill in the past 2 years and 28% had prior training or real-life experience. Processes were inconsistent for patient prioritization, tracking, transport medications, and transport care. Respondents identified communication (43%) as the key barrier to effective evacuation. The equipment considered most helpful included flashlights (24%), transport sleds (21%), and oxygen tanks and respiratory therapy supplies (19%). An evacuation wish list included walkie-talkies/phones (26%), lighting/electricity (18%), flashlights (10%), and portable ventilators and suction (16%).

ICU providers who evacuated critically ill patients during Hurricane Sandy had little prior knowledge of evacuation processes or vertical evacuation experience. The weakest links in the patient evacuation process were communication and the availability of practical tools. Incorporating ICU providers into hospital evacuation planning and training, developing standard evacuation communication processes and tools, and collecting a uniform dataset among all evacuating hospitals could better inform critical care evacuation in the future. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:20–27)

To determine the willingness of parents of children visiting a pediatric emergency department to have a physician assistant (PA) assess and treat their child and the waiting time reduction sufficient for them to choose to receive treatment by a PA rather than wait for a physician.

After describing the training and scope of practice of PAs, we asked caregivers of children triaged as urgent to nonurgent if they would be willing to have their child assessed and treated by a PA on that visit: definitely, maybe, or never. We also asked the minimum amount of waiting time reduction they would want to see before choosing to receive treatment by a PA rather than wait for a physician.

We approached 320 eligible subjects, and 273 (85.3%) consented to participate. Regarding whether they would be willing to have their child receive treatment by a PA, 140 (51.3%) respondents answered definitely, 107 (39.2%) said maybe, and 26 (9.2%) said never. Most respondents (64.1%) would choose to have their child seen by a PA instead of waiting for a physician if the waiting time reduction were at least 60 minutes (median 60 minutes [interquartile range 60 minutes]). Respondents' perception of the severity of their child's condition was associated with unwillingness to receive treatment by a PA, whereas child's age, presenting complaint, and actual waiting time were not.

Only a small minority of parents of children visiting a pediatric emergency department for urgent to nonurgent issues are unwilling to have their child treated by PAs.

To define the range of clinical conditions Canadian emergency pediatricians consider appropriate formanagement by physician assistants (PAs) and the degree of autonomy PAs should have in the pediatric emergency department (PED).

We conducted a cross–sectional, pan-Canadian survey using electronic questionnaire technology: the Active Campaign Survey tool. We targeted PED physicians using the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) network database (N = 297). Three outcome measures were assessed: demographic information, familiarity with PAs, and PA clinical roles in the PED. The level of PA involvement was assessed for 57 common nonemergent clinical conditions.

Of 297 physicians, 152 completed the survey, for a response rate of 51.2%. None of the 57 clinical categories achieved at least 85% agreement regarding PA management without direct physician involvement. Twenty-four clinical conditions had ≥ 15% agreement that any PA involvement would be inappropriate. For the remaining 33 clinical conditions, more than 85% of respondents felt that PA could appropriately manage but were divided between requiring direct and only indirect physician supervision. Respondents' selection of the number of conditions felt to be appropriate for PA involvement varied between the size of the emergency department (ED) in which they work (larger EDs 87.7–89.1% v. smaller EDs 74.2%) and familiarity with the clinical work of PAs in the ED (90.5–91.5% v. 82.2–84.7%).

This national survey of Canadian PED physicians suggests that they feel PAs could help care for a large number of nonemergent clinical cases coming to the PED, but these clinical encounters would have to be directly supervised by a physician.

To describe the frequency and proportion of successful resuscitation interventions in a pediatric emergency department (PED).

This was a retrospective chart review of children at the BC Children's Hospital (BCCH) PED who were admitted to the BCCH pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in 2004 and 2005. Demographic data, diagnosis, and resuscitation interventions in the PED and within the first 24 hours of PICU admission were recorded. The training of the operator and the number of attempts needed were also recorded.

There were 75,133 PED visits; 304 of 329 (92.4%) who met inclusion criteria were reviewed. Diagnoses included respiratory distress (n = 115, 35%), trauma (n = 50, 15%), sepsis (n = 36, 11%), seizures (n = 37, 11%), and cardiac disease (n = 22, 7%). Ninety-nine patients required intubation. Intubations in the PED were performed by residents (20%), pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellows (15%), PEM attending staff (29%), and PICU fellows (12%); 81% of these were successful on the first attempt. In the PED, seven central lines were placed, seven intraosseous needles were inserted, 15 patients required inotropes, and 9 patients required chest compressions.

Critical illness in our emergency department is a rare event; hence, opportunities to resuscitate, secure airways, and place central venous catheters are limited. Additional training, close working relationships between the PED and the PICU teams, and resuscitation protocols for early PICU involvement may be needed.