PURPOSE: In most emergency department (ED), sedation is required before carrying out an invasive procedure on a pediatric patient. In the ED setting, it is essential to determine the optimal dose and administration route of CH for successful sedation. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal dose of CH for an invasive procedure and to examine the effectiveness of the drug's different administration routes. Furthermore, in this study, we performed simple survey using questionnaire which composed of Likert-scale to evaluate satisfaction of medical staffs in ED with administration routes. METHODS: This study was conducted prospectively. The study participants were pediatric patients under 8 years old who visited the ED in two tertiary hospitals in South Korea within a period of 12 months. RESULTS: Overall, 300 patients were included in this study. The age, sex, and weight of the patients were not shown to influence the sedation time. Chloral hydrate dosage is the independent factor to influence the both sedation and discharge time (p<0.01). In the comparison of the groups, groups 1, 2, and 5 showed no significant difference. On the other hand, groups 3 and 4 were shown to be statistically significantly different from group 1. CONCLUSION: Up to 100 mg/kg CH is safe to use in the emergency department for pediatric patients, but the initial dose of 50 mg/kg for oral administration should be considered in advance because it can provide safe and effective sedation with a lower possibility of causing an adverse effect.
Administration, Oral ; Chloral Hydrate* ; Deep Sedation ; Emergency Service, Hospital ; Hand ; Humans ; Korea ; Medical Staff ; Prospective Studies ; Tertiary Care Centers

No abstract available.
HIV-1* ; Humans* ; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha*

No abstract available.
Child ; Humans ; Kasabach-Merritt Syndrome* ; Kidney Failure, Chronic ; Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory

No abstract available.
Child ; Humans ; Kasabach-Merritt Syndrome* ; Kidney Failure, Chronic ; Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory

Background: To promote and maintain oral health among adults, the relationship between oral health and obesity was examined, and the effects of oral health on obesity were investigated. Methods: A total of 4,270 Korean adults aged ≥20 years were selected as study subjects using raw data from the first year (2019) of the eighth period of the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Complex sample Rao–Scott chi-square test and complex sample logistic regression analysis were performed using PASW Statistics ver. 18.0. Results: The prevalence of abdominal obesity was 1.3 times higher subjects with poor oral health than in those with good perceived oral health and 1.3 times higher in subjects who did not receive dental checkups compared to those that did. The frequency of brushing of teeth was 1.2 times higher for subjects who reported brushing 2∼3 times per day compared to those who reported brushing four or more times per day. The risk of being overweight was 1.3 times higher in subjects with one or more dental implants than in those with none. Conclusion To build an integrated health program, it is thought that a preventive approach through self and expert oral health care, considering the age-specific characteristics of adults, is necessary for the intervention process used to build customized obesity prevention projects at the national level.

Purpose: To assess the effect of medically-attended injury (MAI) on the use of home safety equipment, we analyzed the differences in parents’ perception and attitude about injury prevention, and use of home safety equipment depending on the children’s MAI experiences. Methods: From March 2018 through February 2019, we surveyed parents of children aged 5 years or younger via a mobile phone. The parents were divided into the MAI and non-MAI groups. The mobile survey focused on the perception and attitude about injury prevention, and use of home safety equipment (if not used, barriers). Results: Of the 204 parents, 75 (36.8%) reported their children’s MAI, comprising the MAI group. This group used the safety equipment more frequently than the non-MAI group (odds ratio, 7.03; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-14.59; P < 0.001). No significant differences between the 2 groups were found in the perception and attitude about injury prevention, barriers to the use of the equipment, and the type of the equipment in use. Conclusion Parents’ experience in their children’s MAIs was associated with the use of home safety equipment, but it did not affect their perception and attitude about injury prevention. A visit to the emergency department with MAI is an opportunity for education on injury prevention and changes of the attitude.

Purpose: The optimal time for home safety intervention for children’s injury prevention is during the injury-related visits to emergency departments. The authors investigated the effect of home safety equipment provision on the guardians’ perception of injury prevention and attitude toward it, and the use of home safety equipment. Methods: We conducted a double blind randomized controlled study on guardians of children aged 7 years or younger who visited the emergency department with accidental injuries. After completing the structured, pre-intervention survey on home safety, the guardians were randomly assigned to receive either home safety equipment (the intervention group) or stationery (the control group) in the same opaque boxes enclosing pamphlets about home safety education. After 4 weeks, the guardians were contacted for the post-intervention survey. The questionnaires for the latter survey consisted of the same contents with 2 added questions regarding the use of new home safety equipment after intervention. Logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with the outcome (i.e., behavioral change). Results: From April through October 2019, we approached 972 guardians. Of these, 59 guardians answered both pre- and post-intervention surveys. No differences were found in the perception and attitude, and use of home safety equipment between the intervention and control groups at the pre- and post-intervention surveys. No variables were associated with the primary outcome. Conclusion Provision of home safety equipment may be inadequate to improve guardians’ behaviors about prevention of domestic injuries.

Purpose: To assess the effect of medically-attended injury (MAI) on the use of home safety equipment, we analyzed the differences in parents’ perception and attitude about injury prevention, and use of home safety equipment depending on the children’s MAI experiences. Methods: From March 2018 through February 2019, we surveyed parents of children aged 5 years or younger via a mobile phone. The parents were divided into the MAI and non-MAI groups. The mobile survey focused on the perception and attitude about injury prevention, and use of home safety equipment (if not used, barriers). Results: Of the 204 parents, 75 (36.8%) reported their children’s MAI, comprising the MAI group. This group used the safety equipment more frequently than the non-MAI group (odds ratio, 7.03; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-14.59; P < 0.001). No significant differences between the 2 groups were found in the perception and attitude about injury prevention, barriers to the use of the equipment, and the type of the equipment in use. Conclusion Parents’ experience in their children’s MAIs was associated with the use of home safety equipment, but it did not affect their perception and attitude about injury prevention. A visit to the emergency department with MAI is an opportunity for education on injury prevention and changes of the attitude.

Purpose: The optimal time for home safety intervention for children’s injury prevention is during the injury-related visits to emergency departments. The authors investigated the effect of home safety equipment provision on the guardians’ perception of injury prevention and attitude toward it, and the use of home safety equipment. Methods: We conducted a double blind randomized controlled study on guardians of children aged 7 years or younger who visited the emergency department with accidental injuries. After completing the structured, pre-intervention survey on home safety, the guardians were randomly assigned to receive either home safety equipment (the intervention group) or stationery (the control group) in the same opaque boxes enclosing pamphlets about home safety education. After 4 weeks, the guardians were contacted for the post-intervention survey. The questionnaires for the latter survey consisted of the same contents with 2 added questions regarding the use of new home safety equipment after intervention. Logistic regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with the outcome (i.e., behavioral change). Results: From April through October 2019, we approached 972 guardians. Of these, 59 guardians answered both pre- and post-intervention surveys. No differences were found in the perception and attitude, and use of home safety equipment between the intervention and control groups at the pre- and post-intervention surveys. No variables were associated with the primary outcome. Conclusion Provision of home safety equipment may be inadequate to improve guardians’ behaviors about prevention of domestic injuries.