Search

BackgroundInterprofessional education (IPE) provides healthcare students with the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe and effective collaborative care in a variety of clinical settings. Inclusion of IPE in nursing curricula is required for program accreditation in Canada; a variety of learning strategies at varied levels are used to meet this requirement. As this formal requirement only occurred over the last decade, development, facilitation, and evaluation of IPE interventions are ongoing.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to examine if exposure to an introductory IPE activity influenced third-year undergraduate nursing students’ perceived ability to practice competent interprofessional collaboration (IPC).MethodsThe introductory IPE activity included ten-hours of interactive lectures and related case studies, grounded in the National Interprofessional Competency Framework, delivered by various healthcare professionals in a third-year nursing theory and clinical course. Following completion of the courses, quantitative data were collected via the Interprofessional Collaborative Competencies Attainment Survey (ICCAS) which was used to evaluate nursing students’ change in competencies for IPC. Frequencies, percentages, and means were used to analyze the demographic data, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to evaluate the internal reliability of the ICCAS, and paired t-tests were conducted to measure the difference from pre- to post-participation for all 20 items and 6 subscales of the ICCAS.ResultsStudy participants (n = 111) completed the ICCAS at the end of the courses to measure change in six competencies. The survey results indicated improvements in all competencies following the IPE activity.ConclusionsThe significant findings demonstrate that exposure to introductory IPE activities, involving nursing students and other healthcare professionals, hold promise for enhancing IPC in pediatric clinical settings. These findings can be used to inform the development of formal IPE interventions.

Objectives Primary objectives were to evaluate the interrater reliability and validity of proxy-report Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) in children with cancer and pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. Secondary objective was to describe the interrater reliability of each SSPedi item. Methods Respondents were children aged eight to 18 years with cancer or HSCT recipients, and their parents or guardians. We enrolled two pediatric respondent groups. The more symptomatic group was receiving active treatment for cancer, admitted to hospital, and expected to be in a hospital three days later. The less symptomatic group either was in maintenance therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia or had completed cancer treatments. Convergent validity was evaluated by comparing proxy-reported mucositis, nausea and vomiting, pain, and total SSPedi scores, with child self-reported validated scales, and we hypothesized fair correlations. Discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing proxy-reported total SSPedi scores between groups. Interrater reliability of each SSPedi item was evaluated. Results Four hundred thirty-nine child and parent or guardian pairs were recruited. Mean difference in proxy-reported SSPedi scores between the more and less symptomatic groups was 8.2, 95% CI 6.6–9.8. All hypothesized relationships among measures were observed. Intraclass correlation coefficients for SSPedi items ranged from 0.34 (problems with thinking) to 0.80 (diarrhea). Conclusion Proxy-report SSPedi is reliable and valid in children aged 8 years to 18 years with cancer and HSCT recipients. Future work should support proxy-reported symptom assessment in clinical settings where children are not able to self-report or communicate bothersome symptoms.

Objectives were to describe any bothersome symptom and severely bothersome symptoms in inpatient children with cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. We included children 8–18 years of age with cancer or HSCT recipients who were receiving active treatment for cancer, admitted to hospital, and expected to be in hospital 3 days later. We administered the self‐report Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi). We described those who identified any degree of symptom bother (at least “a little”) and those who rated the degree of bother as severe (“a lot” or “extremely”). Factors associated with severe symptoms and total SSPedi scores were examined using multiple logistic and linear regression. Among the 302 patients, 298 (98.7%) reported having any bothersome symptom and 181 (59.9%) had at least one severely bothersome symptom. In multiple regression, older children were significantly more likely to have at least one severely bothersome symptom (15–18 and 11–14 years vs. 8–10 years; P = 0.008) and to have higher total SSPedi scores (P = 0.0003). Those with relapsed disease were more likely to have at least one severely bothersome symptom (odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.1–4.3; P = 0.037) and HSCT recipients were more likely to have higher symptom scores (β = 3.48, standard error = 1.6; P = 0.030). Almost all children receiving cancer therapies experience bothersome symptoms and 60% have at least one severely bothersome symptom. Older children experienced more severely bothersome symptoms and higher symptom scores. Future studies should follow children longitudinally to better understand the symptom trajectory and should institute interventions to manage symptoms.

Background The objective was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the self-report Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) from the perspective of children with cancer and pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. Methods In this multicenter study, respondents were children age eight to 18 years who had cancer or had received HSCT, and their parents. Two different child respondent populations were targeted. More symptomatic respondents were receiving active treatment for cancer, admitted to the hospital, and expected to be in the hospital three days later. Less symptomatic respondents were in maintenance therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia or had completed cancer therapy. Children completed SSPedi and then responded to validated self-report measures of mucositis, nausea, pain, and global quality of life. Children in the more symptomatic group repeated SSPedi and a global symptom change scale three days later. Parent proxy-report was optional. Reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlations while convergent validity was evaluated using Spearman correlations. Results Of 502 children enrolled, 302 were in the more symptomatic group and 200 were in the less symptomatic group. Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 0.92) for test-retest reliability and 0.76 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.80) for inter-rater reliability. The mean difference in SSPedi scores between more and less symptomatic groups was 7.8 (95% CI = 6.4 to 9.2). SSPedi was responsive to change in global symptoms. All hypothesized relationships among measures were observed. Conclusions SSPedi is a self-report symptom bother tool for children with cancer and HSCT recipients that is reliable, valid, and responsive to change. SSPedi can be used for clinical and research purposes. Future work should focus on integration into care delivery.

Background We developed Supportive care Prioritization, Assessment and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK), a web-based application designed to facilitate symptom screening by children receiving cancer treatments and access to supportive care clinical practice guidelines primarily by healthcare providers. The objective was to describe the initial development and evaluation of SPARK from the perspective of children. Implementation Development and evaluation occurred in three phases: (1) low fidelity focused on functionality, (2) design focused on “look and feel” and (3) high fidelity confirmed functionality and design. Cognitive interviews were conducted with children receiving cancer treatments 8–18 years of age. Evaluation occurred after every five interviews and changes were guided by a Review Panel. Quantitative evaluation included SPARK ease of use and understandability of SPARK reports. Results The number of children included by phase were: low fidelity (n = 30), design (n = 30) and high fidelity (n = 30). Across phases, the median age was 13.2 (range 8.5 to 18.4) years. During low-fidelity and design phases, iterative refinements to SPARK improved website navigation, usability and likability from the perspective of children and established symptom report design. Among the last 10 children enrolled to high-fidelity testing, all (100%) understood how to complete symptom screening, access reports and interpret reports. Among these 10 respondents, all (100%) found SPARK easy to use and 9 (90%) found SPARK reports were easy to understand. Conclusions SPARK is a web-based application which is usable and understandable, and it is now appropriate to use for research. Future efforts will focus on clinical implementation of SPARK.