McFadden, Vanessa

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) is a growing field with a unique scholarly perspective and evolving role in academic leadership. Since the last systematic assessment of PHM research in 2009, predating subspecialty certification in 2016 and fellowship accreditation in 2020, the research infrastructure within PHM has not been reevaluated. We sought to assess the current state of PHM research by assessing the number, scope, and scholarly domains of research faculty, as well as research funding and support. METHODS Using the Pediatrics Research in Inpatient Settings Network, we distributed a cross-sectional survey to PHM group leaders across the United States and Canada. The 16-item instrument, adapted from prior PHM and adult hospital medicine surveys, assessed program demographics, faculty effort allocation, research support, funding, and scholarly domains. Surveys were distributed via REDCap with follow-up reminders. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS 49 programs responded (51% response rate), representing 1702 faculty (∼40% of US pediatric hospitalists). Fewer than half of programs (n = 21, 43%) reported faculty with more than 50% research effort. One-hundred and ninety faculty members (11%) had dedicated research time, and 72% of those conducting quality improvement research did so without any protected effort. Most PHM programs (n = 27, 55%) received less than $100 000 in total annual research funding. CONCLUSIONS Despite recent PHM subspecialty designation and pediatric hospitalist desire to conduct research, dedicated time and associated supports are uncommon in PHM groups. Improvements in the PHM research pipeline will require understanding institutional financial constraints and diversifying and strengthening research funding.

OBJECTIVE The pediatric sepsis literature lacks studies examining the inpatient setting, yet sepsis remains a leading cause of death in children’s hospitals. More information is needed about sepsis arising in patients already hospitalized to improve morbidity and mortality outcomes. This study describes the clinical characteristics, process measures, and outcomes of inpatient sepsis cases compared with emergency department (ED) sepsis cases within the Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes data registry from 46 hospitals that care for children. METHODS This retrospective cohort study included Improving Pediatric Sepsis Outcomes sepsis cases from January 2017 to December 2019 with onset in inpatient or ED. We used descriptive statistics to compare inpatient and ED sepsis metrics and describe inpatient sepsis outcomes. RESULTS The cohort included 26 855 cases; 8.4% were inpatient and 91.6% were ED. Inpatient cases had higher sepsis-attributable mortality (2.0% vs 1.4%, P = .025), longer length of stay after sepsis recognition (9 vs 5 days, P <.001), more intensive care admissions (57.6% vs 54.1%, P = .002), and greater average vasopressor use (18.0% vs 13.6%, P <.001) compared with ED. In the inpatient cohort, >40% of cases had a time from arrival to recognition within 12 hours. In 21% of cases, this time was >96 hours. Improved adherence to sepsis treatment bundles over time was associated with improved 30-day sepsis-attributable mortality for inpatients with sepsis. CONCLUSIONS Inpatient sepsis cases had longer lengths of stay, more need for intensive care, and higher vasopressor use. Sepsis-attributable mortality was significantly higher in inpatient cases compared with ED cases and improved with improved sepsis bundle adherence.