Pediatric Critical Care Transport Survey of Current State in Latin America. Latin American Society of Pediatric Intensive Care Transport Committee

Transport of the critically ill and injured pediatric patient often represents a challenge especially in resource-limited setting. The regional hospitals in many parts of the world may not be fully equipped to treat children with complex medical needs. The aim of this survey was to described current practices for personnel training, equipment for pediatric-neonatal transport, transport team composition, characterization of critical care transport systems and data registry in Latin America (LA). Methods An electronic, anonymous, multicenter survey housed by Monkey Survey was sent to physicians in LA and included questions about hospital and pediatric critical transport, resources available and level of car. Nineteen Latin-American countries were asked to complete the survey. Results A total of 212 surveys were analyzed, achieving a representativity of 19 LA countries, being most participants (59.4%, n = 126) from South America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela). Most surveys were conducted by physicians of tertiary level centers (60.8%, n = 129), most of the institutions were classified by the participants as public health care centers (81.6%, n = 173). Most of the surveyed physicians (63.7%, n = 135) reported that there is a coordination center for critical care transport (CCT). In most cases, physicians report that a unified transport system for pediatric critical patients does not exist in their countries (67.45%, n = 143). Only 59 (30.7%) surveys reported the use of an exclusively pediatric critical care transport system. Most of these transport systems are described as a mixture of public and private efforts (51.56%, n = 99), but there is also a considerable involvement of government-funded critical transport systems (43.75%, n = 84). Specific training for personnel devoted to transportation of critically ill patients is reported in 55.6% (90), and the medical equipment necessary to carry out the transport is available in 67.7%. The majority (83.95%, n = 136) mentioned that access to advanced life support courses is possible. Training in triage and disaster is available in 44.1%. Physicians and registered nurse were identified as the transport providers in 41.5%, and only one third were made by pediatricians-pediatric nurse. The main reasons for transfers were respiratory illness, neonatal pathologies, trauma, infectious diseases, and neurological conditions. Overall, pediatric transport was reported as insufficient (70.19%, n = 148) by the surveyed physicians in LA and nonexisting by some of them (6.83%, n = 15). There were no regulations or laws in the majority of the surveyed countries (63.13%), and in the places where physicians reported regulatory laws, there were no dissemination (84.9%) by the local authorities. Conclusions In LA, there is a great variability in personnel training, equipment for pediatric-neonatal transport, transport team composition, and characterization of critical care transport systems. Continued efforts to improve conditions in our countries by generating documents that standardize practices and generating scientific information on the epidemiology of pediatric transfers, especially of critically ill patients, may help reduce patient morbidity and mortality.