Search

Objective: To assess General Practitioner (GP) and pediatrician adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for diagnosis, treatment and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Method: Medical records for 306 children aged ≤15 years from 46 GP clinics and 20 pediatric practices in Australia were reviewed against 34 indicators derived from CPG recommendations. At indicator level, adherence was estimated as the percentage of indicators with 'Yes' or 'No' responses for adherence, which were scored 'Yes'. This was done separately for GPs, pediatricians and overall; and weighted to adjust for sampling processes. Results: Adherence with guidelines was high at 83.6% (95% CI: 77.7–88.5) with pediatricians (90.1%; 95% CI: 73.0–98.1) higher than GPs (68.3%; 95% CI: 46.0–85.8; p = 0.02). Appropriate assessment for children presenting with signs or symptoms of ADHD was undertaken with 95.2% adherence (95% CI: 76.6–99.9), however ongoing reviews for children with ADHD prescribed stimulant medication was markedly lower for both pediatricians (51.1%; 95% CI: 9.6–91.4) and GPs (18.7%; 95% CI: 4.1–45.5). Conclusion: Adherence to CPGs for ADHD by pediatricians was generally high. Adherence by GPs was lower across most domains; timely recognition of medication side effects is a particular area for improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Head injuries in children are a common and potentially devastating presentation. The CareTrack Kids (CTK) study assessed care of Australian children aged 0–15 years, in 2012 and 2013, to evaluate the proportion in line with guideline-based indicators for 17 common conditions. Overall adherence to guideline-based recommended practice occurred 59.8% of care encounters (95% CI: 57.5–62.0), and 78.3% (95% CI: 75.1–81.2) for head injury. This paper presents results for head injury, at indicator level. Methods: A modified version of the RAND-UCLA method of indicator development was used. Indicators, measurable components of a standard or guideline, were developed from international and national guidelines relating to head injury in children and were ratified by clinical experts using a Delphi process. Paediatric nurses extracted data from medical records from general practitioners (GPs), emergency departments (EDs) and inpatient wards in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia, for children under 15 years receiving care in 2012–13. Our purpose was to estimate the percentage adherent for each indicator. Results: The medical records of 629 children with head injury were examined. Fifty-one percent of children were under 5 years old, with more males (61%) than females. Thirty-eight indicators were assessed. Avoidance of nasotracheal airways (100%; 95% CI: 99.4–100) or nasogastric tubes (99.7%; 95% CI: 98.5–100) for children with a head injury had the highest adherence. Indicators relating to primary and secondary assessment of head injuries were mostly adhered to. However, adherence to other indicators was poor (e.g., documentation of the past history of children (e.g., presence or absence of seizures) before the injury; 29.9% (95% CI: 24.5–35.7)), and for others was difficult to estimate with confidence due to small sample sizes (e.g., Children with a head injury who were intubated had PaO2above 80mm Hg; 56.0% (95% CI: 28.6–80.9)). Indicators guiding clinical decision making regarding the need for CT scan had insufficient data to justify reporting. Conclusion: This study highlights that management of head injury in children mostly follows guidelines, but also flags some specific areas of inconsistency. Individual sites are encouraged to use these results to guide investigation of local practices and inform quality improvement endeavours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine the proportion of care provided to children with acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in Australia consistent with clinical practice guidelines. Methods: Indicators were developed from national and international clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations and validated by an expert panel. Medical records from children ≤15 years presenting with AGE in three healthcare settings–Emergency Department (ED), hospital admissions and General Practitioner (GP) consultations–from randomly selected health districts across three Australian States were reviewed. Records were audited against 35 indicators by trained paediatric nurses, to determine adherence to CPGs during diagnosis, treatment, and ongoing management. Results: A total of 14,434 indicator assessments were performed from 854 healthcare visits for AGE by 669 children, across 75 GPs, 34 EDs and 26 hospital inpatient services. Documented adherence to guidelines across all healthcare settings was 45.5% for indicators relating to diagnosis (95% CI: 40.7–50.4), 96.1% for treatment (95% CI: 94.8–97.1) and 57.6% for ongoing management (95% CI: 51.3–63.7). Adherence varied by healthcare setting, with adherence in GPs (54.6%; 95% CI: 51.1–58.1) lower than for either ED settings (84.7%; 95% CI: 82.4–86.9) or for inpatients (84.3%; 95% CI: 80.0–87.9); p<0.0001 for both differences. The difference between settings was driven by differences in the diagnosis and ongoing management phases of care. Conclusions: Adherence to clinical guidelines for children presenting to healthcare providers with AGE varies according to phase of care and healthcare setting. Although appropriate diagnostic assessment and ongoing management phase procedures are not well documented in medical records (particularly in the GP setting), in the treatment phase children are treated in accordance with guidelines over 90% of the time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In order to determine the extent to which care delivered to children is appropriate (in line with evidence-based care and/or clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)) in Australia, we developed a set of clinical indicators for 21 common paediatric medical conditions for use across a range of primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare practice facilities. Methods: Clinical indicators were extracted from recommendations found through systematic searches of national and international guidelines, and formatted with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Experts reviewed the indicators using a multi-round modified Delphi process and collaborative online wiki to develop consensus on what constituted appropriate care. Results: From 121 clinical practice guidelines, 1098 recommendations were used to draft 451 proposed appropriateness indicators. In total, 61 experts (n = 24 internal reviewers, n = 37 external reviewers) reviewed these indicators over 40 weeks. A final set of 234 indicators resulted, from which 597 indicator items were derived suitable for medical record audit. Most indicator items were geared towards capturing information about under-use in healthcare (n = 551, 92%) across emergency department (n = 457, 77%), hospital (n = 450, 75%) and general practice (n = 434, 73%) healthcare facilities, and based on consensus level recommendations (n = 451, 76%). The main reason for rejecting indicators was ‘feasibility’ (likely to be able to be used for determining compliance with ‘appropriate care’ from medical record audit). Conclusion: A set of indicators was developed for the appropriateness of care for 21 paediatric conditions. We describe the processes (methods), provenance (origins and evolution of indicators) and products (indicator characteristics) of creating clinical indicators within the context of Australian healthcare settings. Developing consensus on clinical appropriateness indicators using a Delphi approach and collaborative online wiki has methodological utility. The final indicator set can be used by clinicians and organisations to measure and reflect on their own practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]