Setting up a Paediatric Rapid Access Outpatient Unit: Views of general practice teams

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Rapid Access Outpatient Units (RAOUs) have been suggested as an alternative to hospital inpatient units for the management of some acutely unwell children. These units can provide ambulatory care, delivered close to home, and may prevent unnecessary hospital admission. There are no qualitative data on the views of primary care practitioners regarding these types of facilities. The aim of the study was to explore the opinions of primary care practitioners regarding a newly established RAOU.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The RAOU was established locally at a district general hospital when inpatient beds were closed and moved to an inpatient centre, based six miles away at the tertiary teaching hospital.</p> <p>Qualitative, practice based group interviews with primary care practitioners (general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners and practice nurses) on their experiences of the RAOU. The data collection consisted of three practice based interviews with 14 participants. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used to evaluate the data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was positive feedback regarding ease of telephone access for referral, location, and the value of a service staffed by senior doctors where children could be observed, investigated and discharged quickly. There was confusion regarding the referral criteria for the assessment unit and where to send certain children. A majority of the practitioners felt the utility of the RAOU was restricted by its opening hours. Most participants felt they lacked sufficient information regarding the remit and facilities of the unit and this led to some uneasiness regarding safety and long term sustainability.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Practitioners considered that the RAOU offered a rapid senior opinion, flexible short term observation, quick access to investigations and was more convenient for patients. There were concerns regarding opening hours, safety of patients and lack of information about the unit's facilities. There was confusion about which children should be sent to the unit. This study raises questions regarding policy in regard to the organisation of paediatric services. It highlights that when establishing alternative services to local inpatient units, continual communication and engagement of primary care is essential if the units are to function effectively.</p

Are the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines effective? Meta-analysis of the prospective trials

The objective was to review the evidence of effectiveness of the polyvalent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine from prospective properly randomised controlled trials comparing pneumococcal vaccines with placebo in subjects who are immunocompetent and those likely to have an impaired immune system. Databases searched included the Cochrane Library, (issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966-August 2000), PubMed (to August 2000) and EMBASE ( to August 2000). Reference lists of reports and reviews were also searched. To be included in the analysis, a study had to have been a prospective randomised comparison of a polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine (any valency) and to have a placebo or no treatment comparison group. Papers had to report important clinical outcomes, such as rates of pneumonia, pneumococcal pneumonia, lower respiratory tract infections, pneumonia deaths or bacteraemia. Serological outcomes were not sought. Thirteen randomised comparisons with over 45,000 subjects were identified in an extensive literature review. Eight studies had a quality score of 3 or more on a scale of 1 to 5. In three comparisons with 21,152 immunocompetent subjects (South African gold miners, New Guinea highlanders) pneumococcal vaccination was effective in reducing the incidence of all-cause pneumonia (relative risk 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.66), pneumococcal pneumonia (0.16; 0.11 to 0.23), pneumonia deaths (0.70; 0.50 to 0.96) and bacteraemia (0.18; 0.09 to 0.34). In ten comparisons in over 24,000 people who were elderly or likely to have impaired immune systems, pneumococcal vaccination was without effect for any outcome. Present guidelines recommend pneumococcal vaccination for "high-risk" groups. There is no evidence from randomised trials that this is of any benefit

Immunogenicity of reduced dose priming schedules of serogroup C meningococcal conjugate vaccine followed by booster at 12 months in infants:open label randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the immunogenicity of a single dose infant priming schedule of serogroup C meningococcal (MenC) conjugate vaccine is non-inferior to a two dose priming schedule when followed by a booster dose at age 12 months.DESIGN: Phase IV open label randomised controlled trial carried out from July 2010 until August 2013 SETTING: Four centres in the United Kingdom and one centre in Malta.PARTICIPANTS: Healthy infants aged 6-12 weeks followed up until age 24 months.INTERVENTIONS: In the priming phase of the trial 509 infants were randomised in a 10:10:7:4 ratio into four groups to receive either a single MenC-cross reacting material 197 (CRM) dose at 3 months; two doses of MenC-CRM at 3 and 4 months; a single MenC-polysaccharide-tetanus toxoid (TT) dose at 3 months; or no MenC doses, respectively. Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib)-MenC-TT vaccine was administered to all infants at 12 months of age. All infants also received the nationally routinely recommended vaccines. Blood samples were taken at age 5, 12, 13, and 24 months.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: MenC serum bactericidal antibody assay with rabbit complement (rSBA) one month after the Hib-MenC-TT vaccine. Non-inferiority was met if the lower 95% confidence limit of the difference in the mean log10 MenC rSBA between the single dose MenC-CRM and the two dose MenC-CRM groups was &gt;-0.35.RESULTS: The primary objective was met: after a Hib-MenC-TT booster dose at 12 months of age the MenC rSBA geometric mean titres induced in infants primed with a single MenC-CRM dose were not inferior to those induced in participants primed with two MenC-CRM doses in infancy (660 (95% confidence interval 498 to 876) v 295 (220 to 398)) with a corresponding difference in the mean log10 MenC rSBA of 0.35 (0.17 to 0.53) that showed superiority of the single over the two dose schedule). Exploration of differences between the priming schedules showed that one month after Hib-MenC-TT vaccination, MenC rSBA ≥ 1:8 was observed in &gt;96% of participants previously primed with any of the MenC vaccine schedules in infancy and in 83% of those who were not vaccinated against MenC in infancy. The MenC rSBA geometric mean titres induced by the Hib-MenC-TT boost were significantly higher in children who were primed with one rather than two MenC-CRM doses in infancy. Only priming with MenC-TT, however, induced robust MenC bactericidal antibody after the Hib-MenC-TT booster that persisted until 24 months of age.CONCLUSIONS: MenC vaccination programmes with two MenC infant priming doses could be reduced to a single priming dose without reducing post-boost antibody titres. When followed by a Hib-MenC-TT booster dose, infant priming with a single MenC-TT vaccine dose induces a more robust antibody response than one or two infant doses of MenC-CRM. Bactericidal antibody induced by a single Hib-MenC-TT conjugate vaccine dose at 12 months of age (that is, a toddler only schedule), without infant priming, is not well sustained at 24 months. Because of rapid waning of MenC antibody, programmes using toddler only schedules will still need to rely on herd protection to protect infants and young children.Trial registration Eudract No: 2009-016579-31; NCT01129518; study ID: 2008_06 (http://clinicaltrials.gov).</p