Ventilation monitoring for severe pediatric XXXX during interfacility transport.

@entity1 @entity131 @entity64 @entity542 @entity1763 @entity130
BACKGROUND: Ventilation monitoring practice for intubated pediatric @entity1 with severe @entity131 ( @entity131 ) during interfacility transport (IFT) has not been well documented. We describe the difference of practices in ventilation monitoring during IFT from the perspective of a level I pediatric @entity130 center with an enormous catchment area. METHODS: @entity1 admitted between July 2008 and September 2013 at Winnipeg Health Science Center, Canada, were examined in this retrospective chart review. All @entity1 with severe @entity131 were intubated in regional health centers and required transport to the level 1 @entity130 center. Injuries due to inflicted @entity542 (<5  years of age), @entity64 , drowning, and @entity1763 were excluded. @entity1 characteristics, injury data, ventilation monitoring, and transport metrics were obtained from a regional health center, and transport and @entity130 center charts. RESULTS: Thirty four @entity1 were studied. Specialty transport teams utilized ventilation monitoring significantly more often (95 vs. 23  %; p   <   0.001) than non-specialized ground transport. Specialty teams were more likely to obtain a blood gas prior to departure (74 vs. 0  %; p   =   0.037) if end-tidal monitoring was used. Among unmonitored ground transport @entity1 , mean transport time was 69.1  min. CONCLUSIONS: Non-specialized ground IFT teams did not reliably monitor ventilation in intubated severe pediatric @entity131 @entity1 . Blood gas monitoring was not a ubiquitous practice for either team. Optimal ventilation monitoring strategies for severe pediatric @entity131 may require both blood gas and end-tidal monitoring.
