Search

Background: Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose. Aim: In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long‐term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport. Design: Multi‐site, parallel, multi‐method, prospective cohort study. Methods: A multi‐site, multi‐method study was carried out in 2020–2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. Results: Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow‐up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5–10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality. Conclusion: Several recommendations were made to improve the end‐user experience including 'how to' instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers. Impact: Patient‐/parent‐reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record‐keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians. Reporting Method: Not applicable. Patient Contribution: Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children with paediatric rheumatic diseases (PRDs) are at increased risk of vaccine-preventable disease. Safe and effective vaccination is central to preventive care in PRD patients; however, uncertainty surrounding immunogenicity and safety has contributed to suboptimal vaccination. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment effect on immunogenicity to vaccination in PRD patients and assess vaccine safety, specifically adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) and disease flare. Scoping review. In this scoping review, a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases was conducted from 2014 to 23 August 2022 to identify observational studies evaluating the immunogenicity and safety of commonly used vaccinations in PRD patients. The primary outcome was immunogenicity (defined as seroprotection and protective antibody concentrations), with secondary outcomes describing AEFI and disease flare also extracted. Due to extensive heterogeneity related to diagnostic and vaccination variability, narrative synthesis was used to describe the findings of each study. Study quality was assessed via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022307212). The search yielded 19 studies evaluating immunogenicity to vaccination and incidence of AEFI and disease flares in this population, which were of acceptable quality. Corticosteroids did not have deleterious effects on vaccine response. Treatment with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic DMARDs generally had no effect immunogenicity in PRD patients. While patients exhibited adequate seroprotection, protective antibody levels were lower in patients on some immunosuppressant agents. Varicella infections were recorded post vaccination in several patients with low protective antibody levels undergoing treatment with DMARDs and corticosteroids. Most vaccines appear safe and effective in PRD patients, despite immunosuppressant treatment. Booster vaccinations should be considered with some studies highlighting inadequate seroprotection following primary course of vaccinations with acceleration of antibody decline over time. There was limited evidence to support avoiding live vaccines in PRD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Design Data Sources Methods Results Conclusion Implication for the Profession/Patient Care Reporting Method Patient or Public Contribution To provide a contemporaneous evidentiary overview of neonatal and paediatric studies investigating alarm‐related patient safety and alarm system management. Furthermore, to describe how clinical alarm burden is captured and reported, to identify clinical devices that contribute to alarm burden, to explore alarm‐related and patient safety measures and terminologies and to review alarm management initiatives.Scoping review.A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus and EBSCOhost was conducted from 2013 to 2023 using predetermined search terms, index terms, medical subject headings and truncation.Observational and qualitative studies with neonatal and paediatric populations reporting monitoring and alarm practices; and interventional studies reporting the success of alarm safety interventions were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the mixed methods appraisal tool.The search yielded 37 studies of acceptable quality. The majority explored alarm burden associated with physiological monitoring (n = 35; 95%). Alarm definitions were reported in 46% (n = 17) of studies, and commonly included what constituted actionable and non‐actionable alarms. While 32% (n = 12) of studies considered alarms in relation to clinical outcomes surrounding patient safety, clinician response to alarms was only reported in 19% (n = 7) of studies. Alarm and monitoring interventions were assessed in 51% (n = 19) of included studies, with categorization into six domains: changing alarm parameters, clinician education, communication and planning, technology, alarm ordering and standardization or guidelines.This review has demonstrated the enormity of alarms in clinical settings, heterogeneity of alarm definitions and outlined interventions associated with alarm burden and patient safety.Strategies to ensure appropriate alarm limits are set and clinicians are empowered through education to recognize and respond appropriately to alarms can maximize patient safety.This review adheres to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analysis protocols extension for scoping reviews.No patient or public contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]