Mind the gap! Guideline implementation for peripheral venous catheters in paediatric care : documetation, complications, adherence and context

Introduction: There is a knowledge translation gap between evidence, based on research findings and clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been proposed as a strategy to condense and disseminate research findings. However their existence alone does not minimise the gap, they have to be implemented in everyday practice. Registered nurses’ (RNs) work context influences their research use, but little is known on what contextual factors that influence RNs’ adherence to CPGs. Computer reminders have shown potential to minimise the knowledge translation gap, but insights into their effect on patients’ outcomes, RNs’ adherence and in what context they are most effective is still understudied. Aim: to evaluate the effects of implementing recommendations from a CPG for peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) as reminders in electronic patient records (EPR) and to describe factors of importance for the implementation process and outcomes. Methods: the setting for all four papers was a large paediatric university hospital in Sweden. Data for paper I was collected from 14 inpatient units through observations of patients and PVCs, and audit of EPRs. This was carried out at baseline and than two times after implementing a documentation template for PVCs. Data on PVCs and patients for paper II were retrieved from the EPR at 12 inpatient units, divided into neonatal and paediatric units. Paper III was a cross-sectional survey, including 23 in- and outpatient units. Data was collected through a questionnaire concerning RNs’ adherence to CPG recommendations and their work context, measured by the Alberta Context Tool (ACT). Paper IV was a cluster randomised study, at 12 inpatient units, with computer reminders based on the CPG. A stratified randomisation of units, based on occurrence of PVCs, was performed. The primary outcome was documented signs and symptoms of PVC-related complications at removal and secondary outcome was RNs’ adherence to the CPG, and their work context measured by the ACT. Results: A statistical, not clinical, significant increase of PVCs with complete documentation was the result of the PVC template. One of the 22 complications observed at baseline was documented and none of the complications (n=17 and n=9) post-intervention (paper I). Just over one-third (35.4%) of the patients were affected by a PVC-related complication, with infiltration and occlusion occurring most frequently. Complications were more common in younger age patients (paper II). Work context, in the form of structural and electronic resources, information sharing activities, and evaluation, was in different ways associated with RNs’ adherence to the CPG recommendations (paper III). Ninetyone percent of the RNs adhered to the CPG recommendation of disinfection of hands, 64% to usage of disposable gloves and 54% to daily inspection PVC insertion site (paper III). There was no significant effect of the computer reminders, neither on PVC-related complications nor on RNs’ adherence to the guideline recommendations (paper IV). RNs score of their context in both groups (intervention and control) varied from moderately low to moderately high. Conclusion: The EPR did not provide accurate data on PVCs either before or after the implementation of a PVC template. PVC-related complications, specifically infiltration and occlusion, were common, particularly among younger aged patients. RNs adhered to the recommendation on disinfection of hands, while the use of disposable gloves and daily inspection of PVC insertion site showed greater improvement potential. Diverse contextual factors were in different ways associated with RNs’ adherence to the CPG recommendations. The computer reminders did not have any significant effect on PVC-related complications, or on RNs adherence to the CPG recommendation

Incidence and characteristics of adverse events in paediatric inpatient care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Adverse events (AEs) cause suffering for hospitalised children, a fragile patient group where the delivery of adequate timely care is of great importance. Objective: To report the incidence and characteristics of AEs, in paediatric inpatient care, as detected with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), the Trigger Tool (TT) or the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) method. Method: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 2021, without language restrictions. Studies using manual record review were included if paediatric data were reported separately. We excluded studies reporting: AEs for a specific disease/diagnosis/treatment/procedure, or deceased patients; study protocols with no AE outcomes; conference abstracts, editorials and systematic reviews; clinical incident reports as the primary data source; and studies focusing on specific AEs only. Methodological risk of bias was assessed using a tool based on the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of admissions with ≥1 AEs. All statistical analyses were stratified by record review methodology (GTT/TT or HMPS) and by type of population. Meta-analyses, applying random-effects models, were carried out. The variability of the pooled estimates was characterised by 95% prediction intervals (PIs). Results: We included 32 studies from 44 publications, conducted in 15 countries totalling 33 873 paediatric admissions. The total number of AEs identified was 8577. The most common types of AEs were nosocomial infections (range, 6.8%-59.6%) for the general care population and pulmonary-related (10.5%-36.7%) for intensive care. The reported incidence rates were highly heterogeneous. The PIs for the primary outcome were 3.8%-53.8% and 6.9%-91.6% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population). The equivalent PI was 0.3%-33.7% for HMPS studies (general care). The PIs for preventable AEs were 7.4%-96.2% and 4.5%-98.9% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population) and 10.4%-91.8% for HMPS studies (general care). The quality assessment indicated several methodological concerns regarding the included studies. Conclusion: The reported incidence of AEs is highly variable in paediatric inpatient care research, and it is not possible to estimate a reliable single rate. Poor reporting standards and methodological differences hinder the comparison of study results

Incidence and characteristics of adverse events in paediatric inpatient care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Adverse events (AEs) cause suffering for hospitalised children, a fragile patient group where the delivery of adequate timely care is of great importance. OBJECTIVE To report the incidence and characteristics of AEs, in paediatric inpatient care, as detected with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), the Trigger Tool (TT) or the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) method. METHOD MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 2021, without language restrictions. Studies using manual record review were included if paediatric data were reported separately. We excluded studies reporting: AEs for a specific disease/diagnosis/treatment/procedure, or deceased patients; study protocols with no AE outcomes; conference abstracts, editorials and systematic reviews; clinical incident reports as the primary data source; and studies focusing on specific AEs only. Methodological risk of bias was assessed using a tool based on the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of admissions with ≥1 AEs. All statistical analyses were stratified by record review methodology (GTT/TT or HMPS) and by type of population. Meta-analyses, applying random-effects models, were carried out. The variability of the pooled estimates was characterised by 95% prediction intervals (PIs). RESULTS We included 32 studies from 44 publications, conducted in 15 countries totalling 33 873 paediatric admissions. The total number of AEs identified was 8577. The most common types of AEs were nosocomial infections (range, 6.8%-59.6%) for the general care population and pulmonary-related (10.5%-36.7%) for intensive care. The reported incidence rates were highly heterogeneous. The PIs for the primary outcome were 3.8%-53.8% and 6.9%-91.6% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population). The equivalent PI was 0.3%-33.7% for HMPS studies (general care). The PIs for preventable AEs were 7.4%-96.2% and 4.5%-98.9% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population) and 10.4%-91.8% for HMPS studies (general care). The quality assessment indicated several methodological concerns regarding the included studies. CONCLUSION The reported incidence of AEs is highly variable in paediatric inpatient care research, and it is not possible to estimate a reliable single rate. Poor reporting standards and methodological differences hinder the comparison of study results

Colliding ideals – an interview study of how intervention researchers address adherence and adaptations in replication studies

Abstract Background For an intervention to be considered evidence-based, findings need to be replicated. When this is done in new contexts (e.g., a new country), adaptations may be needed. Yet, we know little about how researchers approach this. This study aims to explore how researchers reason about adaptations and adherence when conducting replication studies, describe what adaptations they make and how these are reported in scientific journals. Methods This was an interview study conducted in 2014 with principal investigators of Swedish replication studies reporting adaptations to an intervention from another country. Studies (n = 36) were identified through a database of 139 Swedish psychosocial and psychological intervention studies. Twenty of the 21 principal investigators agreed to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews, covering 33 interventions. Manifest content analysis was used to identify types of adaptations, and qualitative content analysis was used to explore reasoning and reporting of adaptations and adherence. Results The most common adaptation was adding components and modifying the content to the target population and setting. When reasoning about adaptations and adherence, the researchers were influenced by four main factors: whether their implicit aim was to replicate or improve an intervention; the nature of evidence outlying the intervention such as manuals, theories and core components; the nature of the context, including approaches to cultural adaptations and constraints in delivering the intervention; and the needs of clients and professionals. Reporting of adaptations in scientific journals involved a conflict between transparency and practical concerns such as word count. Conclusions Researchers responsible for replicating interventions in a new country face colliding ideals when trying to protect the internal validity of the study while considering adaptations to ensure that the intervention fits into the context. Implicit assumptions about the role of replication seemed to influence how this conflict was resolved. Some emphasised direct replications as central in the knowledge accumulation process (stressing adherence). Others assumed that interventions generally need to be improved, giving room for adaptations and reflecting an incremental approach to knowledge accumulation. This has implications for design and reporting of intervention studies as well as for how findings across studies are synthesised

Frequency of paediatric patients administered extemporaneous preparations at a Swedish university hospital : A registry-based study comparing two study-years, 10 years apart

Background: Lack of child-friendly dosage forms and strengths often leads to manipulation of medicines at hospital units or by caregivers in the home setting. One alternative to manipulating dosage forms is the use of extemporaneous preparations. In Sweden, these are produced according to good manufacturing practice by a few extemporaneous pharmacies. Objectives: To compare frequencies of patients administered extemporaneous preparations in two separate years, 10 years apart. Methods: This registry-based study describes and compares the frequency of extemporaneous oral preparations administered to paediatric patients in 2009 and 2019 at a Swedish university hospital. The study included 117 023 oral administrations (to 4905 patients) and 128 638 oral administrations (to 4718 patients) from 2009 and 2019, respectively. Results: The frequency of inpatients administered one or more extemporaneous preparations increased from 22% in 2009 to 40% in 2019 (p<0.0001). The increase was observed in all age groups. The use of some active pharmaceutical ingredients increased (eg, captopril, clonidine, hydrocortisone, melatonin and propranolol), and some active pharmaceutical ingredients decreased between the study years (eg, midazolam and sildenafil). Conclusions: The introduction of new authorised products has decreased the need for manipulation or extemporaneous preparations in some therapeutic groups. There remains, however, a pronounced lack of commercially available child-friendly dosage forms and suitable strengths enabling safe administration of medicines to children, indicated by the large percentage of patients receiving at least one extemporaneous preparation. © European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ

Manipulated Oral and Rectal Drugs in a Paediatric Swedish University Hospital, a Registry-Based Study Comparing Two Study-Years, Ten Years Apart

This is a registry-based study with the aim of describing and comparing the frequency of manipulations of solid oral and rectal medicines in 2009 and 2019 at inpatient units and an emergency department in a paediatric hospital within a Swedish university hospital. All patients aged 1 month–18 years with oral or rectal administrations were included. In total, 140,791 oral and rectal administrations were included in 2009, and 167,945 oral and rectal administrations were included in 2019. The frequency of patients receiving at least one manipulated oral medicine decreased between the study years, both in inpatient units and in the emergency department (from 19% to 17%, p = 0.0029 and from 11% to 5%, p p p < 0.0001, respectively). The results show a decrease in the manipulation of both oral and rectal medicines to paediatric patients in 2019 compared to 2009. Even though this implies a safer practice, there is still a pronounced lack of child-friendly dosage forms and suitable strengths enabling the safe administration of medicines to sick children

'Working outside the box'-an interview study regarding manipulation of medicines with registered nurses and pharmacists at a Swedish paediatric hospital

AIM: Studies on frequencies of manipulated medicines in paediatric care are common, but there is little knowledge of experiences of pharmacists and registered nurses in this area. The aim of this study was to explore registered nurses' and pharmacists' reasoning in the manipulation of medicines to paediatric inpatients. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with twelve registered nurses and seven pharmacists were performed at a Swedish paediatric university hospital. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Four major categories emerged from the analysis of the interviews: medicines management, knowledge, consulting others and organisation. Medicines management involved the process of drug handling, which is prescribing, reconstitution or manipulation and administration. Knowledge concerned both the knowledge base and how healthcare personnel seek information. Consulting others involved colleagues, registered nurses and pharmacists, between registered nurses, pharmacists and physicians and between registered nurses, pharmacists and caregivers. Organisation covered documentation, time and working environment. CONCLUSION: Both pharmacists and registered nurses stated that manipulation of medicines to paediatric patients was often necessary but felt unsafe due to lack of supporting guidelines. Pharmacists were natural members of the ward team, contributing with specific knowledge about medicines and formulations

Effects of computer reminders on complications of peripheral venous catheters and nurses' adherence to a guideline in paediatric care : a cluster randomised study

BACKGROUND: Reminder systems in electronic patient records (EPR) have proven to affect both health care professionals' behaviour and patient outcomes. The aim of this cluster randomised trial was to investigate the effects of implementing a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) in paediatric care in the format of reminders integrated in the EPRs, on PVC-related complications, and on registered nurses' (RNs') self-reported adherence to the guideline. An additional aim was to study the relationship between contextual factors and the outcomes of the intervention. METHODS: The study involved 12 inpatient units at a paediatric university hospital. The reminders included choice of PVC, hygiene, maintenance, and daily inspection of PVC site. Primary outcome was documented signs and symptoms of PVC-related complications at removal, retrieved from the EPR. Secondary outcome was RNs' adherence to a PVC guideline, collected through a questionnaire that also included RNs' perceived work context, as measured by the Alberta Context Tool. Units were allocated into two strata, based on occurrence of PVCs. A blinded simple draw of lots from each stratum randomised six units to the control and intervention groups, respectively. Units were not blinded. The intervention group included 626 PVCs at baseline and 618 post-intervention and the control group 724 PVCs at baseline and 674 post-intervention. RNs included at baseline were 212 (65.4 %) and 208 (71.5 %) post-intervention. RESULTS: No significant effect was found for the computer reminders on PVC-related complications nor on RNs' adherence to the guideline recommendations. The complication rate at baseline and post-intervention was 40.6 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 36.7-44.5) and 41.9 % (95 % CI 38.0-45.8), for the intervention group and 40.3 % (95 % CI 36.8-44.0) and 46.9 % (95 % CI 43.1-50.7) for the control. In general, RNs' self-rated work context varied from moderately low to moderately high, indicating that conditions for a successful implementation to occur were less optimal. CONCLUSIONS: The reminders might have benefitted from being accompanied by a tailored intervention that targeted specific barriers, such as the low frequency of recorded reasons for removal, the low adherence to daily inspection of PVC sites, and the lack of regular feedback to the RNs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44819426

Identifying neonatal adverse events in preterm and term infants using a Paediatric Trigger Tool

AIM: To explore the incidence and characteristics of inpatient neonatal adverse events in a Swedish setting. METHODS: A retrospective record review, using a trigger tool, performed by registered nurses and a neonatologist, at a University Hospital. The identified adverse events were categorised by, for example, preventability, severity and time of occurrence. RESULTS: A random selection of 150 admissions representing 3531 patient days were reviewed (mean [SD] birthweight 2620 [1120]g). Three hundred sixty adverse events were identified in 78(52.0%) infants and 305(84.7%) of these were assessed as being preventable. The overall adverse event rate was 240 per 100 admissions and 102.0 per 1000 patient days. Preterm infants had a higher rate than term infants (353 versus 79 per 100 admissions, p=0.001), however with regard to the length of stay, the rates were similar. Most adverse events were temporary and less severe (n=338/360, 93.9%) and the most common type involved harm to skin, tissue or blood vessels (n=163/360, 45.3%). Forty percent (n=145) of adverse events occurred within the first week of admission. CONCLUSION: Adverse events were common in neonatal care and many occurred during the first days of treatment. Characterisation of adverse events may provide focus areas for improvements in patient safety