An interprofessional approach to improving paediatric medication safety.

BACKGROUND: Safe drug prescribing and administration are essential elements within undergraduate healthcare curricula, but medication errors, especially in paediatric practice, continue to compromise patient safety. In this area of clinical care, collective responsibility, team working and communication between health professionals have been identified as key elements in safe clinical practice. To date, there is limited research evidence as to how best to deliver teaching and learning of these competencies to practitioners of the future.

METHODS: An interprofessional workshop to facilitate learning of knowledge, core competencies, communication and team working skills in paediatric drug prescribing and administration at undergraduate level was developed and evaluated. The practical, ward-based workshop was delivered to 4th year medical and 3rd year nursing students and evaluated using a pre and post workshop questionnaire with open-ended response questions.

RESULTS: Following the workshop, students reported an increase in their knowledge and awareness of paediatric medication safety and the causes of medication errors (p < 0.001), with the greatest increase noted among medical students. Highly significant changes in students' attitudes to shared learning were observed, indicating that safe medication practice is learnt more effectively with students from other healthcare disciplines. Qualitative data revealed that students' participation in the workshop improved communication and teamworking skills, and led to greater awareness of the role of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION: This study has helped bridge the knowledge-skills gap, demonstrating how an interprofessional approach to drug prescribing and administration has the potential to improve quality and safety within healthcare.

Service Provision for Children and Young People with Acquired Brain Injury; Practice Recommendations: – International Paediatric Brain Injury Society (IPBIS).

Background: Providing appropriate rehabilitation services for Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) in childhood presents a number of challenges for caregivers, health and education professionals and the young person as they develop.
Primary Objective: To record the challenges and possible creative solutions generated by an international group of professionals to address the needs of children with ABI.
Review of Information: Recommendations were generated from children’s special interest group meetings of the International Brain Injury Association (Turin Italy, 2001, Stockholm Sweden, 2003, Melbourne Australia, 2005, Lisbon Portugal, 2008) and through meetings of the International Paediatric Brain Injury Society (IPBIS), formed in 2009. Delegates participating in the workshops were representative of nations from around the world and included The Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, UK, Finland, Germany, South Africa, USA, Canada, Sweden, Brazil and Italy.
Outcomes: The information presented is based on a retrospective review of those meetings and the summaries of the topics considered.

Healthcare professional experiences and attitudes on unlicensed/off-label paediatric prescribing and paediatric clinical trials.

Objectives: To investigate the knowledge and views of a range of healthcare professionals (consultant paediatricians, general practitioners (GPs), community pharmacists and paediatric nurses) regarding the use of unlicensed/off-label medicines in children and the participation of children in clinical trials.

Methods: A regional study in which a survey instrument with 39 items was issued to 500 randomly selected GPs, all community pharmacists (n?=?512), 50 hospital consultants and 150 paediatric nurses in Northern Ireland.

Results: Approximately half (46.5%) of the 1,212 healthcare professionals approached responded to the questionnaire. The majority of respondents indicated their familiarity with the term unlicensed (82.9%) or off-label (58.6%) prescribing with the most frequently quoted reason for such prescribing being younger age (33.6%). Apart from community pharmacists, most respondents reported having gained their knowledge through personal experience. Even though a large percentage of respondents expressed concerns about the safety (77.8%) or efficacy (87.9%) of unlicensed/off-label prescribing in children, only 30.7% reported informing parents/guardians of these concerns on the use of such medicines in children. In addition, only 56% of respondents believed that unlicensed/off-label medicines should undergo clinical trials in children. Overall, 28.4% of respondents (20.1% of GPs, 41.4% of community pharmacists, 27.7% of paediatric nurses and 94% of consultant paediatricians) indicated their willingness to be actively involved in, and recruit their patients for paediatric clinical research.

Conclusion: The use of unlicensed and off-label medicines remains a major issue in paediatric medicine. Until such times as more licensed medicines are available for children, clear guidance should be developed to allow consistency in practice across the spectrum of healthcare professionals who are involved with such medicines in their routine practice.

Children’s views on unlicensed/off-label paediatric prescribing and paediatric clinical trials.

Objectives: To explore the views and perspectives of children on the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children and on the participation of children in clinical trials. Methods: Focus-group discussions, involving school children, were carried out in a range of primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland. A purposeful sample was chosen to facilitate representation of various socioeconomic groupings. Results: A total of 123 pupils, aged from 10 to 16 years, from six schools, participated in 16 focus groups. In general, pupils viewed the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children as unsafe and unethical and felt it is necessary to test medicines in children to improve the availability of licensed products. The majority felt that older children should be told, and that parents should be told, about the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children, yet they recognised some implications of this, such as potential medication non-adherence. Conclusions: This is the first study to explore the views of healthy children on unlicensed medicine use in children. Children were able to recognise potential risks associated with the unlicensed use of medicines and felt it is necessary to test and license more medicines in children. Practice implications Health care professionals should consider the views of children in decisions that affect their health.

Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill paediatric patients (Protocol)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects of weaning by protocol for invasively ventilated critically ill children.

To compare the total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation of critically ill children who are weaned using protocols versus usual (non-protocolized) practice.
To ascertain any differences between protocolized weaning and usual care in terms of mortality, adverse events, ICU length of stay, and quality of life.

Perceptions and attitudes of Jordanian paediatricians towards off-label paediatric prescribing

Objective To assess current experiences and attitudes of hospital based paediatricians towards off-label medicine prescribing. Setting Paediatric hospital wards and out-patient clinics. Design A prospective, questionnaire based study. Results A 30 item questionnaire was sent to 300 hospital based paediatricians and 250 (83%) were returned completed. Over 69% of responders were familiar with the term off-label medicines. However, only 28% were knowingly prescribing off-label medicines to children. The majority of respondents (90%) expressed concerns about the safety and efficacy of off-label medicines. Only 15% had observed Adverse Drug Reactions, and 31% a treatment failure. The vast majority of respondents (83%) did not obtain informed consent or tell parents they were prescribing off label medicines to their children. Conclusions Off-label prescribing of medicines to children is a familiar concept to the majority of paediatricians in Jordan although only a smaller number are aware that it is common in their practice. Respondents showed concern about off label prescribing, although the majority do not consider it necessary to inform parents. More comprehensive research is needed in this area in Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries.

Organizational assessment in paediatric primary care:Development and initial validation of the primary care organizational questionnaire

Primary care in the United States is undergoing many changes. Reliable and valid instruments are needed to assess the effects of these changes. The Primary Care Organizational Questionnaire (PCOQ), a 56-item 5-point Likert scale survey that evaluates interactions among members of the clinic/practice and job-related attributes, was administered to clinicians and staff in 36 primary care practices serving paediatric populations in Connecticut. A priori scales were reliable (Cronbach alpha =0.7). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed greater heterogeneity across clinics than within clinics for 13 of 15 a priori scales, which were then included in a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation. Eigenvalue analysis showed nine significant factors, largely similar to the a priori scales, indicating concurrent construct validity. Further research will ascertain the utility of the PCOQ in predicting the effectiveness of primary care practices in implementing disease management programmes. © 2006 Royal Society of Medicine Press.

Protocolized versus non-protocolized weaning for reducing the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill paediatric patients

Background:Mechanical ventilation is a critical component of paediatric intensive care therapy. It is indicated when the patient’s spontaneous ventilation is inadequate to sustain life. Weaning is the gradual reduction of ventilatory support and the transfer of respiratory control back to the patient. Weaning may represent a large proportion of the ventilatory period. Prolonged ventilation is associated with significant morbidity, hospital cost, psychosocial and physical risks to the child and even death. Timely and effective weaning may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and may reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with prolonged ventilation. However, no consensus has been reached on criteria that can be used to identify when patients are ready to wean or the best way to achieve it.Objectives:To assess the effects of weaning by protocol on invasively ventilated critically ill children. To compare the total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation of critically ill children who are weaned using protocols versus those weaned through usual (non-protocolized) practice. To ascertain any differences between protocolized weaning and usual care in terms of mortality, adverse events, intensive care unit length of stay and quality of life.Search methods:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 10, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2012), EMBASE (1988 to October 2012), CINAHL (1982 to October 2012), ISI Web of Science and LILACS. We identified unpublished data in the Web of Science (1990 to October 2012), ISI Conference Proceedings (1990 to October 2012) and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (earliest to October 2012). We contacted first authors of studies included in the review to obtain further information on unpublished studies or work in progress. We searched reference lists of all identified studies and review papers for further relevant studies. We applied no language or publication restrictions.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials comparing protocolized weaning (professional-led or computer-driven) versus non-protocolized weaning practice conducted in children older than 28 days and younger than 18 years.Data collection and analysis:Two review authors independently scanned titles and abstracts identified by electronic searching. Three review authors retrieved and evaluated full-text versions of potentially relevant studies, independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias.Main results:We included three trials at low risk of bias with 321 children in the analysis. Protocolized weaning significantly reduced total ventilation time in the largest trial (260 children) by a mean of 32 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8 to 56; P = 0.01). Two other trials (30 and 31 children, respectively) reported non-significant reductions with a mean difference of -88 hours (95% CI -228 to 52; P = 0.2) and -24 hours (95% CI -10 to 58; P = 0.06). Protocolized weaning significantly reduced weaning time in these two smaller trials for a mean reduction of 106 hours (95% CI 28 to 184; P = 0.007) and 21 hours (95% CI 9 to 32; P < 0.001). These studies reported no significant effects for duration of mechanical ventilation before weaning, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and hospital length of stay, PICU mortality or adverse events.Authors' conclusions:Limited evidence suggests that weaning protocols reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation, but evidence is inadequate to show whether the achievement of shorter ventilation by protocolized weaning causes children benefit or harm.