Search

Aim: The aim of this study is to understand the exposure to second‐hand tobacco smoke in the homes of hospitalised children through: (i) understanding the prevalence of smoking in adults or carers and (ii) examining the health services' approach to identifying parental smoking status. Methods: This prospective observational study consisted of two surveys: one administered to parents/carers of hospitalised children and one to health services. The first cross‐sectional survey aimed to elicit the proportion of children requiring admission to a regional Victorian general paediatric unit who live with adults who smoke cigarettes. The survey was delivered to participating parents/carers during the standard nursing admission process. The second survey was administered across 15 public health services to determine if identification of parent/carer's smoking status is a routine part of their standard paediatric admission practice. Results: For the parental survey, 453 responses were obtained from 782 consecutive new admissions. Nearly a third (n = 136, 30%) requiring hospital admission were found to be living with at least one parent/carer who identified as a current cigarette smoker. Of the 15 health services surveyed, only four (27%) nursing units reported routinely asking parents/carers about their smoking status as part of their standard admission process. Conclusion: Admission to hospital provides an opportunity to enhance care for children by addressing nicotine dependence within their families. Findings suggest routine recording of smoking status can be improved, to drive smoking cessation and brief intervention conversations with parents and carers of children admitted to hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are an important tool for the management of children with sepsis. The quality, consistency and concordance of Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) childhood sepsis CPGs with the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare (ACSQHC) sepsis clinical care standards and international sepsis guidelines is unclear. Methods: We accessed childhood sepsis CPGs for all ANZ states and territories through Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative members. The guidelines were assessed for quality using the AGREE‐II instrument. Consistency between CPG treatment recommendations was assessed, as was concordance with the ACSQHC sepsis clinical care standards and international sepsis guidelines. Results: Overall, eight CPGs were identified and assessed. CPGs used a narrative and pathway format, with those using both having the highest quality overall. CPG quality was highest for description of scope and clarity of presentation, and lowest for editorial independence. Consistency between guidelines for initial treatment recommendations was poor, with substantial variation in the choice and urgency of empiric antimicrobial administration; the choice, volume and urgency of fluid resuscitation; and the choice of first‐line vasoactive agent. Most CPGs were concordant with time‐critical components of the ACSQHC sepsis clinical care standard, although few addressed post‐acute care. Concordance with international sepsis guidelines was poor. Conclusion: Childhood sepsis CPGs in current use in ANZ are of variable quality and lack consistency with key treatment recommendations. CPGs are concordant with the ACSQHC care standard, but not with international sepsis guidelines. A bi‐national sepsis CPG may reduce unnecessary variation in care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]