<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Healthcare-associated viral infections (HA-VIs) are common in hospitalized children and are increasingly recognized as a cause of preventable harm; however, the epidemiology and modifiable risk factors for pediatric HA-VIs are poorly understood.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We performed a retrospective case-control study to identify risk factors and outcomes associated with pediatric HA-VIs at a quaternary care children's hospital. HA-VI surveillance was performed hospital-wide using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions. We abstracted data from the electronic medical record and conducted semi-structured interviews with patient caregivers to identify potential exposures 4 days before the HA-VI onset.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>During the 20-month study period, we identified 143 eligible patients with HA-VIs and enrolled 64 matched case-control pairs. In total, 79 viruses were identified among 64 case patients. During the exposure period, case, as compared with control, patients were more frequently exposed to a sick visitor (odds ratio = 5.19; P = .05). During the 7 days after the HA-VI onset, case, as compared with control, patients had a greater length of antibacterial therapy per patient-days (mean 411 vs 159) as well as greater days of antibacterial therapy per patient-days (mean 665 vs 247).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>The results of this study show that exposure to a sick visitor is a potentially modifiable risk factor for pediatric HA-VIs. Hospitalized children with HA-VIs also have increased exposure to antibacterial agents when compared with matched controls. Our findings suggest that hospital policies may need to be revised, with emphasis on visitor screening and partnership with families, to reduce the incidence of pediatric HA-VIs during hospitalization.</p>

Importance: Acute respiratory tract infections account for the majority of antibiotic exposure in children, and broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections is increasing. It is not clear whether broad-spectrum treatment is associated with improved outcomes compared with narrow-spectrum treatment.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of broad-spectrum and narrow-spectrum antibiotic treatment for acute respiratory tract infections in children.

Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study assessing clinical outcomes and a prospective cohort study assessing patient-centered outcomes of children between the ages of 6 months and 12 years diagnosed with an acute respiratory tract infection and prescribed an oral antibiotic between January 2015 and April 2016 in a network of 31 pediatric primary care practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Stratified and propensity score-matched analyses to account for confounding by clinician and by patient-level characteristics, respectively, were implemented for both cohorts.

Exposures: Broad-spectrum antibiotics vs narrow-spectrum antibiotics.

Main Outcomes and Measures: In the retrospective cohort, the primary outcomes were treatment failure and adverse events 14 days after diagnosis. In the prospective cohort, the primary outcomes were quality of life, other patient-centered outcomes, and patient-reported adverse events.

Results: Of 30 159 children in the retrospective cohort (19 179 with acute otitis media; 6746, group A streptococcal pharyngitis; and 4234, acute sinusitis), 4307 (14%) were prescribed broad-spectrum antibiotics including amoxicillin-clavulanate, cephalosporins, and macrolides. Broad-spectrum treatment was not associated with a lower rate of treatment failure (3.4% for broad-spectrum antibiotics vs 3.1% for narrow-spectrum antibiotics; risk difference for full matched analysis, 0.3% [95% CI, -0.4% to 0.9%]). Of 2472 children enrolled in the prospective cohort (1100 with acute otitis media; 705, group A streptococcal pharyngitis; and 667, acute sinusitis), 868 (35%) were prescribed broad-spectrum antibiotics. Broad-spectrum antibiotics were associated with a slightly worse child quality of life (score of 90.2 for broad-spectrum antibiotics vs 91.5 for narrow-spectrum antibiotics; score difference for full matched analysis, -1.4% [95% CI, -2.4% to -0.4%]) but not with other patient-centered outcomes. Broad-spectrum treatment was associated with a higher risk of adverse events documented by the clinician (3.7% for broad-spectrum antibiotics vs 2.7% for narrow-spectrum antibiotics; risk difference for full matched analysis, 1.1% [95% CI, 0.4% to 1.8%]) and reported by the patient (35.6% for broad-spectrum antibiotics vs 25.1% for narrow-spectrum antibiotics; risk difference for full matched analysis, 12.2% [95% CI, 7.3% to 17.2%]).

Conclusions and Relevance: Among children with acute respiratory tract infections, broad-spectrum antibiotics were not associated with better clinical or patient-centered outcomes compared with narrow-spectrum antibiotics, and were associated with higher rates of adverse events. These data support the use of narrow-spectrum antibiotics for most children with acute respiratory tract infections.

<p><strong>CONTEXT: </strong>The families of oncology patients requiring intensive care often face increasing complexity in communication with their providers, particularly when patients are cared for by providers from different disciplines.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To describe experiences and challenges faced by pediatric oncologists and intensivists and how the oncologist-intensivist relationship impacts communication and initiation of goals of care discussions (GCDs).</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of ten physicians, including pediatric oncology and intensive care attendings and fellows.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>We identified key themes (3 barriers, 4 facilitators) to having GCDs with families of oncology patients who have received intensive care. Barriers included challenges to communication within teams because of hierarchy and between teams due to incomplete sharing of information and confusion about who should initiate GCDs; provider experiences of internal conflict about how to engage parents in decision making and about the "right thing to do" for patients; and lack of education and training in communication. Facilitators included team preparation for family meetings; skills for partnering with families; the presence of palliative care specialists; and informal education in communication and willingness for further training in communication. Notably, the education theme was identified as both a barrier and a resource.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>We identified barriers to communication with families both within and between teams and for individual physicians. Formal communication training and processes that standardize communication to ensure completeness and role delineation between clinical teams may improve oncologists' and intensivists' ability to initiate GCDs, thereby fulfilling their ethical obligations of decision support.</p>