Search

Background: Hospital‐acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) pose significant challenges in healthcare and cause increased patient suffering, longer hospital stays, and higher healthcare costs. Paediatric patients face unique risks, but evidence remains scarce. This study aimed to identify and describe HAPI admission incidence and severity predictors in a large Australian children's hospital. Methods: This retrospective cohort study investigated all paediatric patients between January 2020 and December 2021 using a census approach. Demographic and clinical data including HAPI‐related data were accessed from the incident monitoring and hospital administration databases. The incidence rate (per 1000 patient admissions) was calculated based on all admissions. Predictors of HAPI severity were identified using multivariable multinomial logistic regression. The study adhered to the STROBE guidelines for retrospective cohort studies. Results: The HAPI incidence rate was 6.96 per 1000 patient admissions. Of the age groups, neonates had the highest HAPI incidence (15.5 per 1000 admissions). Critically ill children had the highest rate for admission location (12.8 per 1000 patient admissions). Most reported cases were stage I (64.2%). Age was associated with injury severity, with older paediatric patients more likely to develop higher‐stage HAPIs. Additionally, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander patients had a higher HAPI severity risk. Conclusion: HAPI injuries in paediatric patients are unacceptably high. Prevention should be prioritized, and the quality of care improved in Australia and beyond. Further research is needed to develop targeted prevention strategies for these vulnerable populations. Implications for the Profession and Patient Care: This research emphasizes the need for standardized reporting, culturally sensitive care and tailored prevention strategies. Impact: The research has the potential to influence healthcare policies and practices, ultimately enhancing the quality of patient care. Reporting Method: STROBE guidelines. No Patient or Public Contribution: There was no patient or public contribution to the conduct of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vascular Access is the property of Canadian Vascular Access Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective Pain and distress are common in children undergoing medical procedures, exposing them to acute and chronic biopsychosocial impairments if inadequately treated. Clinical hypnosis has emerged as a potentially beneficial treatment for children's procedural pain and distress due to evidence of effectiveness and potential superiority to other psychological interventions. However, systematic reviews of clinical hypnosis for children's procedural pain and distress have been predominantly conducted in children undergoing oncology and needle procedures and are lacking in broader pediatric contexts. This scoping review maps the evidence of clinical hypnosis for children's procedural pain and distress across broad pediatric contexts while highlighting knowledge gaps and areas requiring further investigation. Methods Published databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science) and grey literature were searched in addition to hand-searching reference lists and key journals (up to May 2022). Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of search results followed by a full-text review against eligibility criteria. Articles were included if they involved a clinical hypnosis intervention comprising an induction followed by therapeutic suggestions for pain and distress in children undergoing medical procedures. This review followed the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodology and incorporated additional scoping review recommendations by the Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Results A total of 38 eligible studies involving 2,205 children were included after 4,775 articles were screened. Research on clinical hypnosis for children's procedural pain and distress was marked by a lack of fidelity measures and qualitative data as well as by inadequate intervention reporting and high attrition rates. Evidence regarding the safety of clinical hypnosis, pain unpleasantness outcomes, factors influencing outcomes, as well as barriers and facilitators to implementing hypnosis and study procedures was also lacking. Clinical hypnosis has potential benefits for children's procedural pain and distress based on evidence of superiority to control conditions and nonpharmacological interventions (e.g. distraction, acupressure) with moderate to large effect sizes as reported in 76% of studies. However, heterogeneous interventions, contexts, study designs, and populations were identified, and the certainty of the evidence was not evaluated. Conclusions The review suggests potential benefits of clinical hypnosis for children's procedural pain and distress and thus provides a precursor for further systematic reviews and trials investigating the effectiveness of clinical hypnosis. The review also indicates the need to further explore the feasibility, acceptability, implementation, and safety of clinical hypnosis in children undergoing painful procedures. Based on the review, researchers implementing clinical hypnosis should adequately report interventions or use treatment manuals, follow recommended research guidelines, and assess the fidelity of intervention delivery to promote replicating and comparing interventions. The review also highlights common methodological shortcomings of published trials to avoid, such as the lack of implementation frameworks, small sample sizes, inadequate reporting of standard care or control conditions, and limited evidence on pain unpleasantness outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]