At Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) we sometimes publish the results of surveys and questionnaires that evaluate an aspect of patient care, or monitor opinions and perspectives, or seek parent-reported outcomes. Our assessment starts with the context of numbers. As a series of approximations, consider the following. Worldwide there are around 100,000 professionals working in our field of clinical practice. These individuals belong to some 50 national societies. And, in the United States, there are 3,700 physicians in the American Academy of Pediatrics who practice pediatric critical care in our 350 PICUs. Therefore, when we see a survey report, what is its scale and relevance in relation to these numbers? Do we really get insight into the vox populi (voice of the people)? What is our way of resolving these questions at PCCM? Authors know that the Journal has guidance on writing up reports about surveys and questionnaires (1,2). Our expectation is that writers will adhere to the formats described in the CHERRIES (Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) and CROSS (Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies) checklists (3,4). However, beyond the technical aspects of sample size, response rate, methodology, validation, etc., publication in PCCM requires that the material meets the following two other standards for potential readers. First, is the subject matter topical for our specialist readership? Second, does the work being presented have an anticipated trajectory and direction? In other words, does the work have relevance to our practice that others can learn from? (Which is the same question we ask about systematic reviews (5).) Therefore, this new item in the “Writing for PCCM” series focuses on three main areas of research using as example surveys that have featured in recent PCCM publications. The purpose of writing about these areas of interest is to illustrate the type of work we want to support and read about in the Journal, which include surveys on: 1) bundles of care and practice; 2) educational needs of fellows in training; and 3) parent perspectives of PICU patient outcomes. BUNDLES OF CARE AND PRACTICE Our publication of surveys covering bundles of care has included material on patient referral and transfer (6), procedures (7), and end-of-life care (8,9). However, the reports that best illustrate PCCM’s concept of presenting a survey within the context of a research “trajectory and direction” has come from the Bright STAR (Testing Stewardship for Antibiotic Reduction) collaborative. This multicenter, national group in the United States sought to optimize blood culture practices through diagnostic stewardship with results published in a variety of journals, 2022−2024 (10–12). Then, in 2024, the collaborative reported a survey of PICU clinician practices and perceptions regarding respiratory cultures when evaluating ventilator-associated infections in PCCM (13). An extension—or trajectory and direction—of this work in PCCM followed in 2025 with the development of 30 expert consensus statements (and 15 sub-statements) on diagnostic stewardship of endotracheal aspirate cultures in hospitalized children with artificial airways (14). Therefore, PCCM’s emphasis is straightforward when presenting surveys about “bundles of care and practice” that want to speak to the numbers described in the introduction (i.e., 100,000 and 50, or 3,700 and 350): we will promote multicenter works to readers that follow a theme or program that is relevant to our field and has the potential to move all of us forward to better clinical practice. EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF FELLOWS IN TRAINING There are aspects of our fellowship educational programs in pediatric critical care that require unique perspectives and feedback from fellows. Two recent examples highlight the type of information that can only be gained on a large scale using a candid survey of pediatric critical care fellows. First, a survey of 245 training fellows on aspects of their educational needs in spiritual care in the PICU (15). Second, a survey of 81 fellows at 15 fellowship programs in the United States on their experience of diversity engagement (16). Ultimately, this information has a “trajectory and direction” because it informs all educators, and we are made to reflect on how we should respond to our fellows with a more effective curriculum and better educational exposures. PARENT PERSPECTIVES OF PATIENT OUTCOMES The chronology of post-PICU outcome, survivorship, and general health recovery forms a major component of clinical research in our field (17,18). This means that gaining the perspectives of parents and guardians of our patients is a high priority in our clinical research. We recently learned about the feasibility and acceptability of mobile phone-based surveys of parents (19), parent perspectives on short-term outcomes of critically ill ventilated children (20), and the change in caregiver employment after their child’s discharge from the PICU (21). As PICU providers we can identify with these accounts, and the “trajectory and direction” of this domain of practice is expressed in the interconnectedness of surveys in this theme of work. We welcome more insight into this aspect of family-centered care, as others have highlighted in PCCM (22). CONCLUSION In conjunction with all of the above, we are interested in seeing research surveys published in PCCM. The type of work and its content will determine whether the material is best presented as a Research Letter (i.e., 600 words, 6 references, one table or figure) or as a 3,000-word Clinical Research Report. The technical requirements of the report’s methodology and structure can be found in guidelines and checklists. However, of more importance at PCCM is the subject area and our current emphases on bundles of care and practice in the PICU, educational needs of fellows in training, and parent perspectives of patient outcomes. We welcome all such research, and we encourage authors to use recent publications as the template for PCCM reporting.
Robert C. Tasker (Sun,) studied this question.