Search

Abstract This qualitative study describes the development and evaluation of a clinical pathway to facilitate the implementation of catch‐up vaccinations for children with significant needle fear, particularly in children with developmental disabilities. The Specialist Immunization Team, based at a tertiary level teaching children's hospital, participated in process mapping activities using Motivational Interviewing (MI) techniques and reflective discussions. Team members developed a clinical pathway by incorporating parental feedback from semistructured interviews and clinical expertise from within the team, facilitated by colleagues from the Child Development Unit. A process map was developed that included process strengths and touch points with an action plan that was discussed and agreed upon. A repeat process mapping activity was conducted 16 months later. Reports from parental feedback included: positive, efficient, and successful experiences of having their child undergo catch‐up vaccinations. The experience empowered families for further procedures. Team members reported improvements in triaging appropriate children for the pathway, and an increase in confidence to interact and manage behaviors of children with significant anxiety and challenging behaviors. They also reported an increase in successful vaccinations with improved clinical judgment of facilitating the sedation pathway. This study demonstrates that using group facilitation using motivational interviewing in reflective discussions and process mapping utilizing parent and staff feedback in service improvement activities results in efficient and successful service delivery with improved patient outcomes.

Abstract Objectives Children with intellectual disability experience patient safety issues resulting in poor care experiences and health outcomes. This study sought to identify patient safety issues that pertain to children aged 0–16 years with intellectual disability admitted to two tertiary state‐wide children's hospitals and a children's palliative care centre; to describe and understand these factors to modify the Australian Patient Safety Education Framework to meet the particular needs for children and young people with intellectual disability. Design, Setting and Participants Parents of children with intellectual disability from two paediatric hospitals and a palliative care unit participated in semi‐structured interviews to elicit their experiences of their child's care in the context of patient safety. Thirteen interviews were conducted with parents from various backgrounds with children with intellectual, developmental and medical diagnoses. Results Eight themes about safety in hospital care for children and young people with intellectual disability emerged from thematic analyses: Safety is not only being safe but feeling safe; Negative dismissive attitudes compromise safety, quality and care experience; Parental roles as safety advocates involve being heard, included and empowered; Need for purposeful and planned communication and care coordination to build trust and improve care; Systems, processes and environments require adjustments to prevent patient safety events; Inequity in care due to lack of resources and skills, Need for training in disability‐specific safety and quality issues and Core staff attributes: Kindness, Patience, Flexibility and Responsiveness. Parents highlighted the dilemma of being dismissed when raising concerns with staff and being required to provide care with little support. Parents also reported a lack of comprehensive care coordination services. They noted limitations within the healthcare system in accommodating reasonable adjustments for a family and child‐centred context. Conclusions The development of an adapted Patient Safety Education Framework for children with intellectual disability should consider ways for staff to transform attitudes and reduce bias which leads to adaptations for safer and better care. In addition, issues that apply to quality and safety for these children can be generalised to all children in the hospital. Patient and Public Contribution Parent advocates in the project advisory team were shown the questions to determine their appropriateness for the interviews.