Search

Background: Community children’s nursing services (CCNS) provides nursing and supportive care, ranging from relatively simple to highly technological interventions, to children and young people (0–18 years) within the family home. Objectives: The aim of this study was to elicit the perspectives on and experiences about CCNS in England in relation to things that are working well or that could be improved and the vision for services. Methods: Using a qualitative approach, underpinned by an Appreciative Inquiry philosophy, researchers worked closely with advisory groups (six children and young people, four parents, and five professionals) to design and implement the study. Arts-based participatory appreciative workshops were held in nine regional locations in England; shared activities were undertaken to elicit participants’ experiences. Participants unable to attend the workshops were able to contribute via semistructured interview (face to face or by telephone) or by a dedicated blog or e-mail. Results: Thematic analysis was used, and 214 people participated: families (n = 82), children (n = 27), and professionals or stakeholders (n = 105). Things that were working well were effective communication, robust leadership, actively enabling the child’s care to be sustained at home, and partnerships based on mutual trust. Problems relating to feelings of marginalization, ineffective commissioning, under provision of services and hours of service availability, lack of equipmentor resources, and poor communication between services and settings were areas of concern. The vision for CCNS was for a flexible, equitable, and accessible service that supported children’s and families’ needs and choices and which enabled parents to be parents first rather than caregivers. Discussion: Care at home reduces the disruption to children’s and families’ lives and can empower them to make decisions and control routines and practices. Having CCNS situated within larger teams with strong inte

Background: Community children’s nursing services (CCNS) provides nursing and supportive care, ranging from relatively simple to highly technological interventions, to children and young people (0–18 years) within the family home. Objectives: The aim of this study was to elicit the perspectives on and experiences about CCNS in England in relation to things that are working well or that could be improved and the vision for services. Methods: Using a qualitative approach, underpinned by an Appreciative Inquiry philosophy, researchers worked closely with advisory groups (six children and young people, four parents, and five professionals) to design and implement the study. Arts-based participatory appreciative workshops were held in nine regional locations in England; shared activities were undertaken to elicit participants’ experiences. Participants unable to attend the workshops were able to contribute via semistructured interview (face to face or by telephone) or by a dedicated blog or e-mail. Results: Thematic analysis was used, and 214 people participated: families (n = 82), children (n = 27), and professionals or stakeholders (n = 105). Things that were working well were effective communication, robust leadership, actively enabling the child’s care to be sustained at home, and partnerships based on mutual trust. Problems relating to feelings of marginalization, ineffective commissioning, under provision of services and hours of service availability, lack of equipmentor resources, and poor communication between services and settings were areas of concern. The vision for CCNS was for a flexible, equitable, and accessible service that supported children’s and families’ needs and choices and which enabled parents to be parents first rather than caregivers. Discussion: Care at home reduces the disruption to children’s and families’ lives and can empower them to make decisions and control routines and practices. Having CCNS situated within larger teams with strong inte

Background: Community children’s nursing services (CCNS) provides nursing and supportive care, ranging from relatively simple to highly technological interventions, to children and young people (0–18 years) within the family home. Objectives: The aim of this study was to elicit the perspectives on and experiences about CCNS in England in relation to things that are working well or that could be improved and the vision for services. Methods: Using a qualitative approach, underpinned by an Appreciative Inquiry philosophy, researchers worked closely with advisory groups (six children and young people, four parents, and five professionals) to design and implement the study. Arts-based participatory appreciative workshops were held in nine regional locations in England; shared activities were undertaken to elicit participants’ experiences. Participants unable to attend the workshops were able to contribute via semistructured interview (face to face or by telephone) or by a dedicated blog or e-mail. Results: Thematic analysis was used, and 214 people participated: families (n = 82), children (n = 27), and professionals or stakeholders (n = 105). Things that were working well were effective communication, robust leadership, actively enabling the child’s care to be sustained at home, and partnerships based on mutual trust. Problems relating to feelings of marginalization, ineffective commissioning, under provision of services and hours of service availability, lack of equipmentor resources, and poor communication between services and settings were areas of concern. The vision for CCNS was for a flexible, equitable, and accessible service that supported children’s and families’ needs and choices and which enabled parents to be parents first rather than caregivers. Discussion: Care at home reduces the disruption to children’s and families’ lives and can empower them to make decisions and control routines and practices. Having CCNS situated within larger teams with strong inte

Background: Community children’s nursing services (CCNS) provides nursing and supportive care, ranging from relatively simple to highly technological interventions, to children and young people (0–18 years) within the family home. Objectives: The aim of this study was to elicit the perspectives on and experiences about CCNS in England in relation to things that are working well or that could be improved and the vision for services. Methods: Using a qualitative approach, underpinned by an Appreciative Inquiry philosophy, researchers worked closely with advisory groups (six children and young people, four parents, and five professionals) to design and implement the study. Arts-based participatory appreciative workshops were held in nine regional locations in England; shared activities were undertaken to elicit participants’ experiences. Participants unable to attend the workshops were able to contribute via semistructured interview (face to face or by telephone) or by a dedicated blog or e-mail. Results: Thematic analysis was used, and 214 people participated: families (n = 82), children (n = 27), and professionals or stakeholders (n = 105). Things that were working well were effective communication, robust leadership, actively enabling the child’s care to be sustained at home, and partnerships based on mutual trust. Problems relating to feelings of marginalization, ineffective commissioning, under provision of services and hours of service availability, lack of equipmentor resources, and poor communication between services and settings were areas of concern. The vision for CCNS was for a flexible, equitable, and accessible service that supported children’s and families’ needs and choices and which enabled parents to be parents first rather than caregivers. Discussion: Care at home reduces the disruption to children’s and families’ lives and can empower them to make decisions and control routines and practices. Having CCNS situated within larger teams with strong inte

Background: Childhood falls are an important global public health problem, but there is a lack of evidence about their prevention. Falls on one level result in considerable morbidity and they are costly to health services. Objective: To estimate odds ratios for falls on one level in children aged 0-4 years for a range of safety behaviours, safety equipment use and home hazards. Design, setting and participants: Multicentre case-control study at hospitals, minor injury units and general practices in and around 4 UK study centres. Participants included 582 children less than 5 years of age with a medically attended fall injury occurring at home and 2460 controls matched on age, sex, calendar time and study centre. Main outcome measure: Fall on one level. Results: Cases’ most common injuries were bangs on the head (52%), cuts or grazes not needing stitches (29%) or cuts or grazes needing stitches (17%). Comparing cases to community controls in the adjusted analyses, significant findings were observed for only 2 exposures. Injured children were significantly less likely to live in a household without furniture corner covers (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.72, 95%CI 0.55, 0.95), or without rugs and carpets firmly fixed to the floor (AOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59, 0.98). Conclusions: We did not find any safety practices, use of safety equipment or home hazards associated with a reduced risk of fall on one level. Our findings do not provide evidence to support changes to current injury prevention practice.

Background: Childhood falls are an important global public health problem, but there is a lack of evidence about their prevention. Falls on one level result in considerable morbidity and they are costly to health services. Objective: To estimate odds ratios for falls on one level in children aged 0-4 years for a range of safety behaviours, safety equipment use and home hazards. Design, setting and participants: Multicentre case-control study at hospitals, minor injury units and general practices in and around 4 UK study centres. Participants included 582 children less than 5 years of age with a medically attended fall injury occurring at home and 2460 controls matched on age, sex, calendar time and study centre. Main outcome measure: Fall on one level. Results: Cases’ most common injuries were bangs on the head (52%), cuts or grazes not needing stitches (29%) or cuts or grazes needing stitches (17%). Comparing cases to community controls in the adjusted analyses, significant findings were observed for only 2 exposures. Injured children were significantly less likely to live in a household without furniture corner covers (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.72, 95%CI 0.55, 0.95), or without rugs and carpets firmly fixed to the floor (AOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59, 0.98). Conclusions: We did not find any safety practices, use of safety equipment or home hazards associated with a reduced risk of fall on one level. Our findings do not provide evidence to support changes to current injury prevention practice.

Background: Childhood falls are an important global public health problem, but there is a lack of evidence about their prevention. Falls on one level result in considerable morbidity and they are costly to health services. Objective: To estimate odds ratios for falls on one level in children aged 0-4 years for a range of safety behaviours, safety equipment use and home hazards. Design, setting and participants: Multicentre case-control study at hospitals, minor injury units and general practices in and around 4 UK study centres. Participants included 582 children less than 5 years of age with a medically attended fall injury occurring at home and 2460 controls matched on age, sex, calendar time and study centre. Main outcome measure: Fall on one level. Results: Cases’ most common injuries were bangs on the head (52%), cuts or grazes not needing stitches (29%) or cuts or grazes needing stitches (17%). Comparing cases to community controls in the adjusted analyses, significant findings were observed for only 2 exposures. Injured children were significantly less likely to live in a household without furniture corner covers (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.72, 95%CI 0.55, 0.95), or without rugs and carpets firmly fixed to the floor (AOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59, 0.98). Conclusions: We did not find any safety practices, use of safety equipment or home hazards associated with a reduced risk of fall on one level. Our findings do not provide evidence to support changes to current injury prevention practice.

Background: Childhood falls are an important global public health problem, but there is a lack of evidence about their prevention. Falls on one level result in considerable morbidity and they are costly to health services. Objective: To estimate odds ratios for falls on one level in children aged 0-4 years for a range of safety behaviours, safety equipment use and home hazards. Design, setting and participants: Multicentre case-control study at hospitals, minor injury units and general practices in and around 4 UK study centres. Participants included 582 children less than 5 years of age with a medically attended fall injury occurring at home and 2460 controls matched on age, sex, calendar time and study centre. Main outcome measure: Fall on one level. Results: Cases’ most common injuries were bangs on the head (52%), cuts or grazes not needing stitches (29%) or cuts or grazes needing stitches (17%). Comparing cases to community controls in the adjusted analyses, significant findings were observed for only 2 exposures. Injured children were significantly less likely to live in a household without furniture corner covers (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.72, 95%CI 0.55, 0.95), or without rugs and carpets firmly fixed to the floor (AOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59, 0.98). Conclusions: We did not find any safety practices, use of safety equipment or home hazards associated with a reduced risk of fall on one level. Our findings do not provide evidence to support changes to current injury prevention practice.

Background: Childhood falls are an important global public health problem, but there is a lack of evidence about their prevention. Falls on one level result in considerable morbidity and they are costly to health services. Objective: To estimate odds ratios for falls on one level in children aged 0-4 years for a range of safety behaviours, safety equipment use and home hazards. Design, setting and participants: Multicentre case-control study at hospitals, minor injury units and general practices in and around 4 UK study centres. Participants included 582 children less than 5 years of age with a medically attended fall injury occurring at home and 2460 controls matched on age, sex, calendar time and study centre. Main outcome measure: Fall on one level. Results: Cases’ most common injuries were bangs on the head (52%), cuts or grazes not needing stitches (29%) or cuts or grazes needing stitches (17%). Comparing cases to community controls in the adjusted analyses, significant findings were observed for only 2 exposures. Injured children were significantly less likely to live in a household without furniture corner covers (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.72, 95%CI 0.55, 0.95), or without rugs and carpets firmly fixed to the floor (AOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59, 0.98). Conclusions: We did not find any safety practices, use of safety equipment or home hazards associated with a reduced risk of fall on one level. Our findings do not provide evidence to support changes to current injury prevention practice.