An australian audit of vaccination status in children and adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Children and adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of vaccine preventable diseases (VPD). This includes invasive pneumococcal disease and influenza. The primary aim of this study was to describe compliance with current Australian guidelines for vaccination of children and adolescents diagnosed with IBD. A secondary aim was to review the serological screening for VPD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A random sample of patients (0-18 years at diagnosis), were selected from the Victoria Australia state based Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Register. A multi-faceted retrospective review of immunization status was undertaken, with hospital records audited, a telephone interview survey conducted with consenting parents and the vaccination history was checked against the primary care physician and Australian Childhood Immunization Register (ACIR) records. The routine primary childhood vaccinations and administration of the recommended additional influenza and pneumococcal vaccines was clarified.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>This 2007 audit reviewed the immunization status of 101individuals on the Victorian Pediatric IBD database. Median age at diagnosis was 12.1 years, 50% were on active immunosuppressive therapy. 90% (38/42) [95% confidence intervals (CI) 77%; 97%] with complete immunization information were up-to-date with routine primary immunizations. Only 5% (5/101) [95% CI 2%; 11%] received a recommended pneumococcal vaccine booster and 10% (10/101) [95% CI 5%; 17%] had evidence of having ever received a seasonal influenza vaccine. Those living in rural Victoria (p = 0.005) and younger at the age of diagnosis (p = 0.002) were more likely to have ever received an influenza vaccine Serological testing, reviewing historical protection from VPD, identified 18% (17/94) with evidence of at least one serology sample.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study highlights poor compliance in IBD patients for additional recommended vaccines. A multi-faceted approach is required to maximize protection from VPD in this vulnerable special risk population.</p

Computerized clinical decision support systems for chronic disease management: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) may improve chronic disease management, which requires recurrent visits to multiple health professionals, ongoing disease and treatment monitoring, and patient behavior modification. The objective of this review was to determine if CCDSSs improve the processes of chronic care (such as diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of disease) and associated patient outcomes (such as effects on biomarkers and clinical exacerbations).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for potentially eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS was designed to support chronic disease management. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of relevant outcomes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 55 included trials, 87% (n = 48) measured system impact on the process of care and 52% (n = 25) of those demonstrated statistically significant improvements. Sixty-five percent (36/55) of trials measured impact on, typically, non-major (surrogate) patient outcomes, and 31% (n = 11) of those demonstrated benefits. Factors of interest to decision makers, such as cost, user satisfaction, system interface and feature sets, unique design and deployment characteristics, and effects on user workflow were rarely investigated or reported.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A small majority (just over half) of CCDSSs improved care processes in chronic disease management and some improved patient health. Policy makers, healthcare administrators, and practitioners should be aware that the evidence of CCDSS effectiveness is limited, especially with respect to the small number and size of studies measuring patient outcomes.</p

A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac