WHO standards-based tools to measure service providers' and service users' views on the quality of hospital child care: development and validation in Italy

Objectives Evidence showed that, even in high-income countries, children and adolescents may not receive high quality of care (QOC). We describe the development and initial validation, in Italy, of two WHO standards-based questionnaires to conduct an assessment of QOC for children and young adolescents at inpatient level, based on the provider and user perspectives. Design Multiphase, mixed-methods study. Setting, participants and methods The two questionnaires were developed in four phases equally conducted for each tool. Phase 1 which included the prioritisation of the WHO Quality Measures according to predefined criteria and the development of the draft questionnaires. In phase 2 content face validation of the draft questionnaires was assessed among both experts and end-users. In phase 3 the optimised questionnaires were field tested to assess acceptability, perceived utility and comprehensiveness (N=163 end-users). In phase 4 intrarater reliability and internal consistency were evaluated (N=170 and N=301 end-users, respectively). Results The final questionnaires included 150 WHO Quality Measures. Observed face validity was excellent (kappa value of 1). The field test resulted in response rates of 98% and 76% for service users and health providers, respectively. Among respondents, 96.9% service users and 90.4% providers rated the questionnaires as useful, and 86.9% and 93.9%, respectively rated them as comprehensive. Intrarater reliability was good, with Cohen's kappa values exceeding 0.70. Cronbach alpha values ranged from 0.83 to 0.95, indicating excellent internal consistency. Conclusions Study findings suggest these tools developed have good content and face validity, high acceptability and perceived utility, and good intrarater reliability and internal consistency, and therefore could be used in health facilities in Italy and similar contexts. Priority areas for future research include how tools measuring paediatric QOC can be more effectively used to help health professionals provide the best possible care

Lactobacillus casei strain GG in the treatment of infants with acute watery diarrhea: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial [ISRCTN67363048]

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy to ORT with probiotic bacteria for infants with acute watery diarrhea has been under active investigation. Most studies have been done in the developed world showing benefit only for viral mild gastroenteritis. We evaluated the effect of a milk formula containing one billion (10(9)) cfu/ml of Lactobacillus casei strain GG (LGG) upon duration and severity of diarrhea in infants in an environment with more severe acute diarrhea, where etiologic agents other than rotavirus are involved more frequently, and where mixed infections are more prevalent. METHODS: Male infants aged 3–36 months brought for treatment of acute watery diarrhea of less than 48 hours were eligible. After rehydration was completed with the WHO's oral rehydration solution, patients were randomly assigned to receive a milk formula either containing LGG or not. Stool volume was periodically measured using a devise suited to collect stools separate from urine. Duration of diarrhea was estimated based on stools physical characteristics. RESULTS: Eighty nine patients received the placebo milk formula and ninety received the LGG containing formula. Both groups were comparable in their baseline characteristics. Total stool output was significantly larger (p = 0.047) in the LGG group (247.8 ml/kg) than in the placebo group (195.0 ml/kg). No significant differences were found in duration of diarrhea (58.5 hours with LGG vs. 50.4 hours with placebo), rate of treatment failure (21.1% with LGG vs. 18.0% with placebo), and proportion of patients with unresolved diarrhea after 120 hours (12.2% with LGG vs. 12.5% with placebo). The rate of stools with reducing substances after 24 hours of treatment increased significantly in both groups (from 41.4% to 72.2% with LGG and from 45.9% to 68.0% with placebo). CONCLUSION: This study did not show a positive effect of LGG on the clinical course of acute watery diarrhea. Positive beneficial effects of LGG, as had been reported elsewhere, could have been masked in our study by worsening diarrhea due to transient lactose malabsorption. Further studies with low-lactose or non-lactose conveyors of LGG are desirable