Managing common infections in Day Care settings : Day Care providers' sickness exclusion beliefs, advice, and their consequences for parents

Background and Aims: Judicial antibiotic prescribing and appropriate use of healthcare resources are public health priorities. Preschool-aged children that attend day care frequently consult general practitioners (GPs) and receive antibiotics, despite experiencing mainly self-limiting and/or viral infections. North-American surveys indicate that day care providers unnecessarily exclude children with infections, and make exceptions to exclusion on the basis of antibiotic treatment. Commentators suggest that this may lead to unnecessary consultations and inappropriate antibiotic requests. This study’s main aim was to explore whether UK-based day care providers’ management of infections encourages parents to unnecessarily consult GPs, and inappropriately seek antibiotics. A secondary aim was to describe the content and nature of written day care sickness exclusion policies. Questionnaire Methods and Results: Questionnaires were distributed to 329 day care providers in three socio-demographically contrasting areas of South-East Wales, to gather descriptive data regarding sickness exclusion policies. 216 (66%) responses were received. Policies were mostly self-written, diverse in content and detail, and often non-evidence-based. Qualitative Methods and Results: Day care providers’ management of infections, and the influence this had on parents’ consulting and antibiotic-seeking behaviours, were explored through semi-structured interviews with 24 purposefully selected day care providers, and 28 opportunistically-selected parents that used their services. Interviews underwent inductive thematic analysis. All day care providers encouraged parents to consult GPs for self-limiting infections, and often inappropriately advised antibiotic treatment through written policies and verbal communication. Some parents felt that day care attendance increased their tendency to consult for symptoms they would usually manage themselves. The purpose of consultation was often to expedite return to day care, rather than alleviate concern. Parents understood that antibiotics were unlikely to be beneficial, but still sought and received treatment in order to appease day care providers’ requirements. Conclusion: Day care providers’ inappropriate advice to parents, together with non-evidence-based exclusion policies, contribute to unnecessary GP consultations and inappropriate antibiotic-seeking behaviour.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Managing common infections in Day Care settings: Day Care providers’ sickness exclusion beliefs, advice, and their consequences for parents

Background and Aims: Judicial antibiotic prescribing and appropriate use of healthcare resources are public health priorities. Preschool-aged children that attend day care frequently consult general practitioners (GPs) and receive antibiotics, despite experiencing mainly self-limiting and/or viral infections. North-American surveys indicate that day care providers unnecessarily exclude children with infections, and make exceptions to exclusion on the basis of antibiotic treatment. Commentators suggest that this may lead to unnecessary consultations and inappropriate antibiotic requests. This study’s main aim was to explore whether UK-based day care providers’ management of infections encourages parents to unnecessarily consult GPs, and inappropriately seek antibiotics. A secondary aim was to describe the content and nature of written day care sickness exclusion policies. Questionnaire Methods and Results: Questionnaires were distributed to 329 day care providers in three socio-demographically contrasting areas of South-East Wales, to gather descriptive data regarding sickness exclusion policies. 216 (66%) responses were received. Policies were mostly self-written, diverse in content and detail, and often non-evidence-based. Qualitative Methods and Results: Day care providers’ management of infections, and the influence this had on parents’ consulting and antibiotic-seeking behaviours, were explored through semi-structured interviews with 24 purposefully selected day care providers, and 28 opportunistically-selected parents that used their services. Interviews underwent inductive thematic analysis. All day care providers encouraged parents to consult GPs for self-limiting infections, and often inappropriately advised antibiotic treatment through written policies and verbal communication. Some parents felt that day care attendance increased their tendency to consult for symptoms they would usually manage themselves. The purpose of consultation was often to expedite return to day care, rather than alleviate concern. Parents understood that antibiotics were unlikely to be beneficial, but still sought and received treatment in order to appease day care providers’ requirements. Conclusion: Day care providers’ inappropriate advice to parents, together with non-evidence-based exclusion policies, contribute to unnecessary GP consultations and inappropriate antibiotic-seeking behaviour

Inclusion of ethnic minorities in telehealth trials for type 2 diabetes:Protocol for a systematic review examining prevalence and language issues

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is common, on the rise, and disproportionately affects ethnic minority groups. Telehealth interventions may mitigate diabetes-related complications, but might under-recruit or even exclude ethnic minorities, in part because of English language requirements. The under-representation of minority patients in trials could threaten the generalizability of the findings, whereby the patients who might stand to benefit most from such interventions are not being included in their evaluation. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this systematic review are twofold: (1) to assess the reporting and prevalence of ethnic minorities in published telehealth trials for type 2 diabetes, including identifying trial features associated with successful patient recruitment; and (2) to determine the proportion of such trials that report English language proficiency as an inclusion/exclusion criterion, including how and why they do so. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with type 2 diabetes in Western, English-speaking countries that included telehealth interventions targeting diabetes as a primary condition, and those that did not specifically recruit minority groups will be included. Search strategies were devised for indexed and keyword terms capturing type 2 diabetes, telehealth/health technology, and RCTs in English language publications from 2000 to July 2015 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL. Reference lists of included studies will also be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen abstracts and full-text articles against inclusion criteria, mediated by a third reviewer if consensus cannot be reached. Data extracted from included studies will be checked by a second reviewer and will be summarized using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: This research is in progress, with findings expected by Spring 2016. CONCLUSIONS: This review will address research reporting and recruitment practices of ethnic minorities in telehealth RCTs for type 2 diabetes. Prevalence estimates will elucidate generalizability of existing research, with implications for researchers, health professionals, and policy makers. Identifying trial or intervention features that appear to facilitate ethnic minority recruitment, as well as language barriers that impede it might suggest ways to improve recruitment in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42015024899; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015024899 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6fUMqbJ0f)

The Prepare for Kidney Care Study: prepare for renal dialysis versus responsive management in advanced chronic kidney disease

Shared decision making in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires unbiased information on survival and person-centred outcomes known to matter to patients: quality of life, symptom burden and support from family and healthcare professionals. To date, when deciding between dialysis and conservative care, patients have had to rely on evidence from small observational studies. Clinicians recognize that like is not being compared with like in these studies, and interpret the results differently. Furthermore, support differs considerably between renal units. What patients choose therefore depends on which renal unit they attend. To address this, a programme of work has been underway in the UK. After reports on survival and symptoms from a small number of renal units, a national, mixed-methods study-the Conservative Kidney Management Assessment of Practice Patterns Study-mapped out conservative care practices and attitudes in the UK. This led to the Prepare for Kidney Care study, a randomized controlled trial comparing preparation for dialysis versus preparation for conservative care. Although powered to detect a positivist 0.345 difference in quality-adjusted life years between the two treatments, this trial also takes a realist approach with a range of person-centred secondary outcomes and embedded qualitative research. To understand generalizability, it is nested in an observational cohort study, which is nested in a CKD registry. Challenges to recruitment and retention have been rapidly identified and addressed using an established embedded mixed methods approach-the QuinteT recruitment intervention. This review considers the background to and progress with recruitment to the trial

Dressing use issues in primary abdominal wounds : a qualitative study of health staff and patient views

Primary surgical abdominal wounds are usually covered with a dressing. However, little is known about the practical issues and costs around these dressings. This study aimed to provide an in-depth description of patients' and health professionals' perspectives on the clinical and practical issues associated with standard and novel dressing (glue-as-a-dressing) use on primary surgical wounds, and to establish whether and how their experience compares with these perspectives. During semi-structured interviews, patients and health professionals discussed their positive experience of glue-as-a-dressing and no dressing around six themes: wound contamination and infection, wound healing, wound care, physical protection afforded by simple dressings, the potential psychological impact of an exposed wound, and ability to carry out everyday tasks. Current views on the practice of dressings for primary abdominal wounds are influenced by ingrained clinical practice. These views can be challenged when exposed to novel dressing strategies or as new evidence of the clinical effect of dressing strategies emerges