Partnerships for safe care: A meta-narrative of the experience for the parent of a child with Intellectual Disability in hospital

© 2019 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objective: To systematically identify and synthesize peer-reviewed qualitative evidence of the parental experience of hospitalization with a child with Intellectual Disability. Search strategy: Key words, synonyms and MeSH subject headings that related to the three key concepts of parental experience, children with Intellectual Disability and hospital settings were applied to six electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Titles and abstracts of publications between January 2000 and February 2019 were screened for relevance. Inclusion criteria: Empirical qualitative research involved participants aged 0-18 years, involved children with Intellectual Disability, involved participants hospitalized as an in-patient and involved participants focused on parent perspective. Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted and synthesized using a meta-narrative approach. Results: Eleven publications met the inclusion criteria. Data synthesis revealed three research traditions contributing to this meta-narrative: Paediatric Nursing Practice, Intellectual Disability Healthcare and Patient Experience. A total of five themes were identified: (a) being more than a parent, (b) importance of role negotiation, (c) building trust and relationships, (d) the cumulative effect of previous experiences of hospitalization and (e) knowing the child as an individual. Discussion and conclusion: This review presents a working model for professional-parent partnership for the safe care of children with Intellectual Disability in hospital. Shifting paediatric healthcare to whole of hospital/multidisciplinary models of care that centre on the child will necessitate partnerships with the parent to identify and manage the needs of the child with Intellectual Disability, in order to achieve safe and equitable care for these children

Inequities in quality and safety outcomes for hospitalized children with intellectual disability.

AimTo investigate if there are inequities in quality and safety outcomes for children with intellectual disability admitted to two tertiary paediatric hospitals.MethodA cross-sectional study of 1367 admissions for 1018 randomly selected patients admitted for more than 23 hours to one of two tertiary children's hospitals in Sydney, Australia (1st January-31st December 2017). Electronic medical records were manually interrogated to identify children with intellectual disability (including developmental delay). Data extracted included patient demographics, length of stay, number of admissions, and reported clinical incidents.ResultsIn total, 12.3% (n=125) of children admitted during the study period had intellectual disability, which represented 13.9% (n=190) of admissions. Sex and age at admission in children with and without intellectual disability were similar: 83 (43.7%) vs 507 (43.1%) females and 107 (56.3%) vs 670 (56.9%) males, p=0.875; median age 3 years (0-18y) vs 4 years (0-18y), p=0.122. Children with intellectual disability had significantly greater median length of stay (100.5h vs 79h, pInterpretationChildren with intellectual disability experience inequitable quality and safety outcomes in hospital. Engaging children and families in clinical incident reporting may enhance understanding of safety risks for children with intellectual disability in hospital

A systematic review of the prevalence of parental concerns measured by the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) indicating developmental risk

© 2014 Woolfenden et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Background: Parental concerns about their children's development can be used as an indicator of developmental risk. We undertook a systematic review of the prevalence of parents' concerns as an indicator of developmental risk, measured by the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and associated risk factors. Methods: Electronic databases, bibliographies and websites were searched and experts contacted. Studies were screened for eligibility and study characteristics were extracted independently by two authors. A summary estimate for prevalence was derived. Meta-regression examined the impact of study characteristics and quality. Meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates of the impact of biological and psychosocial risk factors on the odds of parental concerns indicating high developmental risk. Results: Thirty seven studies were identified with a total of 210,242 subjects. Overall 13.8% (95% CI 10.9 -16.8%) of parents had concerns indicating their child was at high developmental risk and 19.8% (95% CI 16.7-22.9%) had concerns indicating their child was at moderate developmental risk. Male gender, low birth weight, poor/fair child health rating, poor maternal mental health, lower socioeconomic status (SES), minority ethnicity, not being read to, a lack of access to health care and not having health insurance were significantly associated with parental concerns indicating a high developmental risk. Conclusions: The prevalence of parental concerns measured with the PEDS indicating developmental risk is substantial. There is increased prevalence associated with biological and psychosocial adversity. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42012003215

'Smiles and laughter and all those really great things': Nurses' perceptions of good experiences of care for inpatient children and young people with intellectual disability.

AIM: To understand what constitutes a good experience of care for inpatient children and young people with intellectual disability as perceived by nursing staff. DESIGN: Interpretive qualitative study. METHODS: Focus groups with clinical nursing staff from speciality neurological/neurosurgical and adolescent medicine wards across two specialist tertiary children's hospitals in Australia were conducted between March and May 2021. Data analysis followed interpretative analysis methods to develop themes and codes which were mapped to a conceptual model of safe care. RESULTS: Six focus groups with 29 nurses of varying experience levels were conducted over 3 months. Themes and codes were mapped to the six themes of the conceptual model: use rapport, know the child, negotiate roles, shared learning, build trust and relationships, and past experiences. The analysis revealed two new themes that extended the conceptual model to include; the unique role of a paediatric nurse, and joy and job satisfaction, with a third contextual theme, impacts of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. With the perspectives of paediatric nurses incorporated into the model we have enhanced our model of safe care specifically for inpatient paediatric nursing care of children and young people with intellectual disability. CONCLUSION: Including perceptions of paediatric nurses confirmed the position of the child with intellectual disability being at the centre of safe care, where care is delivered as a partnership between nursing staff, child or young person and their parents/family and the hospital systems and processes. IMPACT: The enhanced model offers a specialized framework for clinical staff and health managers to optimize the delivery of safe care for children and young people with intellectual disability in hospital

Codesigning patient experience measures for and with children and young people with intellectual disability: A study protocol

Introduction Children and young people with intellectual disability represent one of the most vulnerable groups in healthcare, yet they remain under-represented in projects to design, develop and/or improve healthcare service delivery. Increasingly, healthcare services are using various codesign and coproduction methodologies to engage children and young people in service delivery improvements. Methods and analysis This study employs an inclusive approach to the study design and execution, including two co-researchers who are young people with intellectual disability on the project team. We will follow an adapted experience-based co-design methodology to enable children and young people with intellectual disability to participate fully in the co-design of a prototype tool for eliciting patient experience data from children and young people with intellectual disability in hospital. Ethics and dissemination This study was granted ethical approval on 1 February 2021 by the Sydney Children's Hospitals Network Human Research Ethics Committee, reference number 2020/ETH02898. Dissemination plan includes publications, doctoral thesis chapter, educational videos. A summary of findings will be shared with all participants and presented at the organisation quality and safety committee

Codesigning patient experience measures for and with children and young people with intellectual disability: a study protocol.

Abstract Introduction Children and young people with intellectual disability represent one of the most vulnerable groups in healthcare, yet they remain under-represented in projects to design, develop and/or improve healthcare service delivery. Increasingly, healthcare services are using various codesign and coproduction methodologies to engage children and young people in service delivery improvements. Methods and analysis This study employs an inclusive approach to the study design and execution, including two co-researchers who are young people with intellectual disability on the project team. We will follow an adapted experience-based co-design methodology to enable children and young people with intellectual disability to participate fully in the co-design of a prototype tool for eliciting patient experience data from children and young people with intellectual disability in hospital. Ethics and dissemination This study was granted ethical approval on 1 February 2021 by the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network Human Research Ethics Committee, reference number 2020/ETH02898. Dissemination plan includes publications, doctoral thesis chapter, educational videos. A summary of findings will be shared with all participants and presented at the organisation quality and safety committee

‘Advocacy groups are the connectors’: Experiences and contributions of rare disease patient organization leaders in advanced neurotherapeutics

Introduction: Biomedical progress has facilitated breakthrough advanced neurotherapeutic interventions, whose potential to improve outcomes in rare neurological diseases has increased hope among people with lived experiences and their carers. Nevertheless, gene, somatic cell and other advanced neurotherapeutic interventions carry significant risks. Rare disease patient organizations (RDPOs) may enhance patient experiences, inform expectations and promote health literacy. However, their perspectives are understudied in paediatric neurology. If advanced neurotherapeutics is to optimize RDPO contributions, it demands further insights into their roles, interactions and support needs. Methods: We used a mixed-methodology approach, interviewing 20 RDPO leaders representing paediatric rare neurological diseases and following them up with two online surveys featuring closed and open-ended questions on advanced neurotherapeutics (19/20) and negative mood states (17/20). Qualitative and quantitative data were analysed using thematic discourse analysis and basic descriptive statistics, respectively. Results: Leaders perceived their roles to be targeted at educational provision (20/20), community preparation for advanced neurotherapeutic clinical trials (19/20), information simplification (19/20) and focused research pursuits (20/20). Although most leaders perceived the benefits of collaboration between stakeholders, some cited challenges around collaborative engagement under the following subthemes: conflicts of interest, competition and logistical difficulties. Regarding neurotherapeutics, RDPO leaders identified support needs centred on information provision, valuing access to clinician experts and highlighting a demand for co-developed, centralized, high-level and understandable, resources that may improve information exchange. Leaders perceived a need for psychosocial support within themselves and their communities, proposing that this would facilitate informed decision-making, reduce associated psychological vulnerabilities and maintain hope throughout neurotherapeutic development. Conclusion: This study provides insights into RDPO research activities, interactions and resource needs. It reveals a demand for collaboration guidelines, central information resources and psychosocial supports that may address unmet needs and assist RDPOs in their advocacy. Patient or Public Contribution: In this study, RDPO leaders were interviewed and surveyed to examine their perspectives and roles in advanced neurotherapeutic development. Some participants sent researchers postinterview clarification emails regarding their responses to questions

Driving precision policy responses to child health and developmental inequities

The growing evidence base on the extent of and opportunities to reduce inequities in children’s health and development still lacks the specificity to inform clear policy decisions. A new phase of research is needed that builds on contemporary directions in precision medicine to develop precision policy making; with the aim to redress child inequities. This would include identifying effective interventions and their ideal time point(s), duration, and intensity to maximise impact. Drawing on existing data sources and innovations in epidemiology and biostatistics would be key. The economic and social gains that could be achieved from reducing child inequities are immense. <br

Developmental risk among Aboriginal children living in urban areas in Australia : the Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health (SEARCH)

Background: Most Australian Aboriginal children are on track with their development, however, the prevalence of children at risk of or with a developmental or behavioural problem is higher than in other children. Aboriginal child development data mostly comes from remote communities, whereas most Aboriginal children live in urban settings. We quantified the proportion of participating children at moderate and high developmental risk as identified by caregivers' concerns, and determined the factors associated with developmental risk among urban Aboriginal communities. Methods: Study methods were co-designed and implemented with four participating urban Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services in New South Wales, Australia, between 2008 and 2012. Caregiver-reported data on children < 8 years old enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study (Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health: SEARCH) were collected by interview. The Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) was used to assess developmental risk through report of caregiver concerns. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated using multinomial logistic regression to investigate risk factors and develop a risk prediction model. Results: Of 725 children in SEARCH with PEDS data (69% of eligible), 405 (56%) were male, and 336 (46%) were aged between 4.5 and 8 years. Using PEDS, 32% were at high, 28% moderate, and 40% low/no developmental risk. Compared with low/no risk, factors associated with high developmental risk in a mutually-adjusted model, with additional adjustment for study site, were male sex (OR 2.42, 95% confidence intervals 1.62-3.61), being older (4.5 to < 8 years versus < 3 years old, 3.80, 2.21-6.54), prior history of ear infection (1.95, 1.21-3.15), having lived in 4 or more houses versus one house (4.13, 2.04-8.35), foster care versus living with a parent (5.45, 2.32-12.78), and having a caregiver with psychological distress (2.40, 1.37-4.20). Conclusion: In SEARCH, 40% of urban Aboriginal children younger than 8 years were at no or low developmental risk. Several factors associated with higher developmental risk were modifiable. Aboriginal community-driven programs to improve detection of developmental problems and facilitate early intervention are needed

Study protocol for a real-world evaluation of an integrated child and family health hub for migrant and refugee women

Introduction Continuity of child and family healthcare is vital for optimal child health and development for developmentally vulnerable children. Migrant and refugee communities are often at-risk of poor health outcomes, facing barriers to health service attendance including cultural, language, limited health literacy, discrimination and unmet psychosocial needs. 'Integrated health-social care hubs' are physical hubs where health and social services are co-located, with shared referral pathways and care navigation. Aim Our study will evaluate the impact, implementation and cost-benefit of the First 2000 Days Care Connect (FDCC) integrated hub model for pregnant migrant and refugee women and their infants. Materials and methods This study has three components. Component 1 is a non-randomised controlled trial to compare the FDCC model of care with usual care. This trial will allocate eligible women to intervention and control groups based on their proximity to the Hub sites. Outcome measures include: the proportion of children attending child and family health (CFH) nurse services and completing their CFH checks to 12 months of age; improved surveillance of growth and development in children up to 12 months, post partum; improved breastfeeding rates; reduced emergency department presentations; and improved maternal well-being. These will be measured using linked medical record data and surveys. Component 2 will involve a mixed-method implementation evaluation to clarify how and why FDCC was implemented within the sites to inform future roll-out. Component 3 is a within-trial economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Hubs relative to usual care and the implementation costs if Hubs were scaled and replicated. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted by the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee in July 2021 (Project ID: 020/ETH03295). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. Trial registration number ACTRN12621001088831