Search

Background: Depression and anxiety are associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), lower functioning and decreased treatment adherence. In 2019, 7% adults in the US had moderate/severe symptoms of depression, while Disclosures Roberts: Genentech, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, uniQure: Consultancy; Takeda; Speakers Bureau: Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Sanofi, Takeda.: Research Funding. Kulkarni: Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire/Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sidonio: Bayer: Consultancy; Catalyst: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Guardian Therapeutics: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biomarin: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Carpenter: Genentech: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria; Kedrion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Hemophilia and Thrombosis Research Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Konkle: Pfizer, Sangamo, Sanofi, Sigilon, Spark, Takeda and Uniqure: Research Funding; BioMarin, Pfizer and Sigilon: Consultancy. Wu: Baxalta US Inc., Bannockburn, IL (a Takeda Company), CSL Behring L.L.C., Octapharma USA, Inc., Genentech Inc.: Research Funding. Curtis: Pfizer, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; University of Southern California: Consultancy. Nichol: Pfizer, Genentech Inc., Baxalta US Inc., Bannockburn, IL (a Takeda Company), Octapharma, CSL Behring, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk: Research Funding.

Aims and objectives: Explore the parent and child/young person experience of difficult venous access and identify ideas and preferences for changes to clinical practice. Background: Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion is one of the most common invasive procedures in hospitalised paediatric patients. Multiple insertion attempts in paediatric patients are common and associated with pain and distress. Little research has explored the parent and child/young person experience of difficult venous access nor sought to identify their suggestions to improve clinical practice. Design: Qualitative description. Methods: A purposive sampling approach was used to identify children and young people with experience of difficult venous access and their parents. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, with sample size based on data saturation. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: There were 12 participants, seven parents and five children/young people (five parent/child dyads and two individual parents). Analysis of the data revealed three main themes: (1) Distress—before, during and after (2) Families navigating the system: the challenging journey from general clinician to specialist and (3) Difficult venous access impacts both treatment and life outside the hospital A pre-determined theme, (4) Recommendations for good clinical practice is also described. Conclusions: Multiple attempts to insert a peripheral intravenous catheter are a source of substantial distress for children/young people, leading to treatment avoidance. Effective interpersonal skills, providing choice and avoiding frightening language are important to minimise distress. Clinicians without specialist training should assess each child's venous access experience and consider immediate referral to a specialist if they have a history of difficult venous access. Cultural change is required so clinicians and healthcare services recognise that repeated cannulation may be a source of psychological distress for children/young people. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Long peripheral catheters (LPCs) are emerging vascular access devices used for short-medium term vascular access needs. Literature in adults suggests LPCs have longer dwell-times than peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) and lower rates of serious complications than peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). The role of LPCs in children is less established. The objective of this scoping review is to describe and synthesize the existing literature on the effectiveness and safety of LPCs in children.This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Searches were done in MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, CINAHL (Ebsco), and Google Scholar most recently on February 22, 2022. Studies were included if published in English on or after 2000 and included patients18 years of age.Twenty-one studies were included. The body of literature is variable in quality, measurements, and reported outcomes. Median dwell-time ranged from 5 to 14 days. The rate of completion of therapy ranged from 20% to 86%. Dislodgement, occlusion, and infiltration were the most common complications reported (0%-31%). Venous thromboembolism rates ranged from 0% to 13%. The rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection was 0% in 9 of 10 studies. Less than 50% of studies reported comparative outcomes.LPCs show promising outcomes in select populations, with longer dwell-time than PIVs and possibly lower rates of serious complications than PICCs. However, more research is needed to clarify the optimal use of LPCs in pediatrics.

Pediatric extravasation injuries are significant healthcare-associated injuries, with sometimes significant sequelae. Evidence-based guidance on management is necessary to prevent permanent injury.A systematic review of the literature, including aggregated case series, investigating extravasation injury management of hospitalized pediatric patients.PubMed, Cummulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) were searched on December 13, 2021.Primary research investigating extravasation injury management of hospitalized pediatric patients (to 18 years), published from 2010 onwards and in English, independently screened by two authors, with arbitration from a third author.Data regarding the study, patient (age, primary diagnosis), extravasation (site, presentation, outcome), and treatment (first aid, wound management) were extracted by two authors, with arbitration from a third author.From an initial 1769 articles, 27 studies were included with extractable case data reported in 18 studies, resulting in 33 cases. No clinical trials were identified, instead, studies were primarily case studies (52%) of neonates (67%), with varied extravasation symptoms. Studies had good selection and ascertainment, but few met the causality and reporting requirements for quality assessments. Signs and symptoms varied, with scarring (45%) and necrosis (30%) commonly described. Diverse treatments were categorized into first aid, medical, surgical, and dressings.Despite infiltration and extravasation injuries being common within pediatric healthcare, management interventions are under-researched, with low-quality studies and no consensus on treatments or outcomes.

Although vaccination is widely accepted as an effective method of preventing and controlling the COVID-19 pandemic, many people are concerned about possible cutaneous side-effects, which can delay or prevent them from being vaccinated. The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the global prevalence and clinical manifestations of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for articles published from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021, and reference lists for each selected article were screened. Case reports, case series, observational studies and randomized controlled trials that provided information on cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccines were included. A total of 300 studies were included in a systematic review of which 32 studies with 946 366 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of cutaneous manifestations following COVID-19 vaccination was 3.8% (95% CI, 2.7%-5.3%). COVID-19 vaccines based on the mRNA platform had a higher prevalence than other platforms at 6.9% (95% CI, 3.8%-12.3%). Various cutaneous manifestations have been reported from injection site reactions, which were the most common (72.16%) to uncommon adverse reactions such as delayed inflammatory reactions to tissue filler (0.07%) and flares of pre-existing dermatoses (0.07%). Severe cutaneous reactions such as anaphylaxis have also been reported, but in rare cases (0.05%). In conclusion, cutaneous adverse reactions are common, especially in those receiving mRNA vaccines. Most reactions are mild and are not contraindications to subsequent vaccination except for anaphylaxis, which rarely occurs. COVID-19 vaccination may also be associated with flares of pre-existing dermatoses and delayed inflammatory reactions to tissue filler. Patients with a history of allergies, pre-existing skin conditions or scheduled for filler injections should receive additional precounselling and monitoring. A better understanding of potential side-effects may strengthen public confidence in those wary of new vaccine technologies.

Several environmental policies strive to restore impaired ecosystems and could benefit from a consistent and transparent process-codeveloped with key stakeholders-to prioritize impaired ecosystems for restoration activities. The Clean Water Act, for example, establishes reallocation mechanisms to transfer ecosystem services from sites of disturbance to compensation sites to offset aquatic resource functions that are unavoidably lost through land development. However, planning for the prioritization of compensatory mitigation areas is often hampered by decision-making processes that fall into a myopic decision frame because they are not coproduced with stakeholders. In this study, we partnered with domain experts from the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services to codevelop a real-world decision framework to prioritize catchments by potential for the development of mitigation projects following principles of a structured decision-making process and knowledge coproduction. Following an iterative decision analysis cycle, domain experts revised foundational components of the decision framework and progressively added complexity and realism as they gained additional insights or more information became available. Through the course of facilitated in-person and remote interactions, the codevelopment of a decision framework produced three main "breakthroughs" from the perspective of the stakeholder group: (a) recognition of the problem as a multiobjective decision driven by several values in addition to biogeophysical goals (e.g., functional uplift, restoring or enhancing lost functionality of ecosystems); (b) that the decision comprises a linked and sequential planning-to-implementation process; and (c) future risk associated with land-use and climate change must be considered. We also present an interactive tool for "on-the-fly" assessment of alternatives and tradeoff analysis, allowing domain experts to quickly test, react to, and revise prioritization strategies. The decision framework described in this study is not limited to the prioritization of compensatory mitigation activities across North Carolina but rather serves as a framework to prioritize a wide range of restoration, conservation, and resource allocation activities in similar environmental contexts across the nation.

BACKGROUND: Family-centered care (FCC) has been successfully incorporated into daily practice in many neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) worldwide. However, the implementation of FCC in lower-resourced settings, such as Thailand, can be challenging and needs to be further explored. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify parents' and interdisciplinary professionals' perceptions of FCC and to describe the opportunities to improve FCC in a Thai NICU. DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative approach was used. METHODS: The data were collected through face-to-face, semi-structured, individual interviews based on an interview guide. This study was conducted before the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (February 2020) in a hospital in southern Thailand. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse interview data. RESULTS: Participants were parents (n = 9) and interdisciplinary professionals (n = 8). The results revealed four key themes: (a) Recognizing and responding to individual families' different readiness and their rights and values, (b) working in a parent-interdisciplinary partnership to provide care, (c) lacking resources and motivation and (d) understanding of care requirements and providing help/sympathy. CONCLUSIONS: The interdisciplinary professionals accepted that FCC is necessary for clinical practice, but there are some challenges in the Thai NICUs context because of the system of health care delivery. The findings highlighted that interdisciplinary professionals often viewed parents' involvement as an obstacle to providing neonatal care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Further research is recommended to investigate how FCC is operationalized by interdisciplinary professionals and how hospital administrators can be supported to implement the FCC approach into clinical practice in Thai NICUs.

BACKGROUND The optimal intravenous device for antibiotic administration for children with respiratory disease is uncertain. We assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing midline catheters with peripherally inserted central catheters. METHODS Prospective, two-arm, feasibility randomized controlled trial in an Australian tertiary, pediatric hospital. Random assignment of 110 children (

Background: Childbirth is a normal, physiological process, yet intervention is common. Arguably the most common intervention is the insertion of a peripheral intravenous catheter; however, there are few studies guiding best practice. This study aimed to describe current intravenous catheter insertion practice, explore clinician decision-making during insertion and perceptions of women. Methods: This prospective, observational cohort study recruited 101 women and clinicians from two Australian regional hospitals. Data collection incorporated non-participant observation, brief interview and chart review. Variables measured included pain score, insertion attempts, catheter gauge and dwell time. Results: Childbearing women were, on average, aged 31 with body mass index (BMI) above 28. Women reported a mean pain score of 3.3/10 at 24 h for catheter insertion and 12% reported bruising. An 18-gauge catheter was considered more painful than a 16-gauge, and multiple attempts did not increase perceived average pain score. Association between failed first attempts and higher BMI was not established. Participant clinicians were predominantly midwives, who selected and placed 18-gauge catheters mostly in hand or wrist (66%). Decision-making about site, catheter gauge, dressing and attempts varied. Thirty-four per cent attempted two to three times, despite regular practise. Confidence to reliably insert determined catheter gauge and almost half clinician participants cited hospital policy and preferred non-dominant arm as key reasons for the location of PIVC. Conclusions: Regular use of a large-gauge catheter is counter intuitive when placed in the small veins of the hand with extension tubing. More research is needed to promote best practice around gauge selection, site and women's experience.