Jolanda Maaskant

Evidence-Based Practice: A Survey Among Pediatric Nurses and Pediatricians

This survey compared the attitude, awareness, and knowledge of pediatric nurses and pediatricians regarding evidence-based practice (EBP). Potential barriers were also investigated. Both nurses and pediatricians welcomed EBP (mean scores are 73.3 and 75.4 out of 100). Overall, 52% of the nurses and 36% of the pediatricians did not know relevant sources of information, and 62% of the nurses versus 19% of the pediatricians did not know common EBP terms. Time constraints and lack of knowledge were considered as major barriers. Recommendations include multilevel training and continuous exchange of information.

Quality Indicators for Safe Medication Preparation and Administration: A Systematic Review

Background One-third of all medication errors causing harm to hospitalized patients occur in the medication preparation and administration phase, which is predominantly a nursing activity. To monitor, evaluate and improve the quality and safety of this process, evidence-based quality indicators can be used. Objectives The aim of study was to identify evidence-based quality indicators (structure, process and outcome) for safe in-hospital medication preparation and administration. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies published up to January 2015. Additionally, nine databases were searched to identify relevant grey literature. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the method for quality indicator development combined a literature search with expert panel opinion, (2) the study contained quality indicators on medication safety, and (3) any of the quality indicators were applicable to hospital medication preparation and administration. A multidisciplinary team appraised the studies independently using the AIRE instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. Quality indicators applicable to in-hospital medication preparation and administration were extracted using a structured form. Results The search identified 1683 studies, of which 64 were reviewed in detail and five met the inclusion criteria. Overall, according to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose; most of them applied stakeholder involvement and used evidence reasonably; usage of the indicator in practice was scarcely described. A total of 21 quality indicators were identified: 5 structure indicators (e.g. safety management and high alert medication), 11 process indicators (e.g. verification and protocols) and 5 outcome indicators (e.g. harm and death). These quality indicators partially cover the 7 rights. Conclusion Despite the relatively small number of included studies, the identified quality indicators can serve as an excellent starting point for further development of nursing specific quality indicators for medication safety. Especially on the right patient, right route, right time and right documentation there is room future development of quality indicators.

Abusive head trauma in young children in the Netherlands: evidence for multiple incidents of abuse

We investigated the prevalence of risk factors for and the prevalence of prior abuse in abusive head trauma victims in the Netherlands.

High-alert medications for pediatric patients: an international modified Delphi study

Background: The available knowledge about high-alert medications for children is limited. Because children are particularly vulnerable to medication errors, a list of high-alert medication specifically for children would help to develop effective strategies to prevent patient harm. Therefore, we conducted an international modified Delphi study and validated the results with reports on medication incidents in children based on national data. Objective: The objective of this study was to generate an internationally accepted list of high-alert medications for a pediatric inpatient population from birth to 18-years old. Results: The rating panel consisted of 34 experts from 13 countries. In total, 14 medications and 4 medication classes were included with the predefined level of consensus of 75%. The high-alert medications were: amiodarone, digoxin, dopamine, epinephrine, fentanyl, gentamycin, heparine, insulin, morphine, norepinephrine, phenytoin, potassium, propofol and tacrolimus. The high-alert medication classes included in the final list were: chemotherapeutic drugs, immunosuppressive medications, lipid/total parenteral nutrition and opioids. Conclusion: An international group of experts defined 14 medications and 4 medication classes as high-alert for children. This list might be helpful as a starting point for individual hospitals to develop their own high-alert list tailored to their unique situation.

Competencies of specialised wound care nurses: a European Delphi study

Health care professionals responsible for patients with complex wounds need a particular level of expertise and education to ensure optimum wound care. However, uniform education for those working as wound care nurses is lacking. We aimed to reach consensus among experts from six European countries as to the competencies for specialised wound care nurses that meet international professional expectations and educational systems. Wound care experts including doctors, wound care nurses, lecturers, managers and head nurses were invited to contribute to an e‐Delphi study. They completed online questionnaires based on the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists framework. Suggested competencies were rated on a 9‐point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as an agreement of at least 75% for each competence. Response rates ranged from 62% (round 1) to 86% (rounds 2 and 3). The experts reached consensus on 77 (80%) competences. Most competencies chosen belonged to the domain ‘scholar’ (n = 19), whereas few addressed those associated with being a ‘health advocate’ (n = 7). Competencies related to professional knowledge and expertise, ethical integrity and patient commitment were considered most important. This consensus on core competencies for specialised wound care nurses may help achieve a more uniform definition and education for specialised wound care nurses.

Can Clinical Evaluation Predict Return to Sport after Acute Hamstring Injuries? A Systematic Review

BackgroundThe current literature on the value of clinical evaluation for predicting time to return to sport (RTS) after acute hamstring injuries has not been systematically summarised.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the prognostic value of clinical findings (patient history and physical examination) for time to RTS after acute hamstring injuries in athletes.Data SourcesThe databases PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library were searched between October 2014 and August 2015.Study Eligibility CriteriaStudies evaluating patient history and/or physical assessment findings as possible predictors for time to RTS (described in days or weeks) following acute hamstring injuries in athletes were eligible for inclusion.Data AnalysisTwo authors independently screened the search results and assessed risk of bias using the modified Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for quality appraisal of prognosis studies. We used a best-evidence synthesis to determine the level of evidence.ResultsSixteen studies were included, of which one study had a low risk of bias and 15 had a high risk of bias. Moderate evidence for an association with time to RTS was found for three clinical findings (visual analogue scale; pain at time of injury, self-predicted time to RTS and clinician predicted time to RTS). There was limited evidence for an association with time to RTS for seven clinical findings (muscle pain during everyday activities, popping sound at injury, forced to stop within 5 min, visual bruising at the site of injury, width (cm) of tenderness to palpation, pain on trunk flexion and pain on active knee flexion initially after injury). The remaining clinical findings revealed either conflicting evidence or limited evidence for an association with time to RTS.ConclusionThere is at present no strong evidence that any clinical finding at baseline provides a valuable prognosis for time to RTS after an acute hamstring injury. There is moderate evidence that visual analogue scale pain at time of injury and predictions for time to RTS by the patient and the clinician are associated with time to RTS. The methodological quality of the current literature is characterised by a substantial risk of bias and reporting of RTS definitions and criteria for RTS were inconsistent. We provide recommendations that can guide the design of future studies.

The clinimetric properties of the COMFORT scale: A systematic review

The COMFORT scale is a measurement tool to assess distress, sedation and pain in nonverbal paediatric patients. Several studies have described the COMFORT scale, but no formal assessment of the methodological quality has been undertaken. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to study the clinimetric properties of the (modified) COMFORT scale in children up to 18 years. We searched Central, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo and Web of Science until December 2014. The selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Quality of the included studies was appraised using the COSMIN checklist. We found 30 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Most participants were ventilated children up to 4 years without neurological disorders. The results on internal consistency and interrater reliability showed values of >0.70 in most studies, indicating an adequate reliability. Construct validity resulted in correlations between 0.68 and 0.84 for distress, between 0.42 and 0.94 for sedation and between 0.31 and 0.96 for pain. The responsiveness of the (modified) COMFORT scale seems to be adequate. The quality of the included studies ranged from poor to excellent. The COMFORT scale shows overall an adequate reliability in providing information on distress, sedation and pain. Construct validity varies from good to excellent for distress, from moderate to excellent for sedation, and from poor to excellent for pain. The included studies were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous, hampering firm conclusions.

Verpleegkundige dossierbespreking: een goed idee voor implementatie van EBP?

SamenvattingIn het AMC is enige tijd geleden het project ‘Verpleegkundige dossierbesprekingen’ gestart. Dit project heeft tot doel verpleegafdelingen te stimuleren klinische redeneer- en EBP-vaardigheden daadwerkelijk in de praktijk te implementeren en daarmee de kwaliteit van zorg te vergroten. Het is een succesvol project gebleken dat op een laagdrempelige manier beide vaardigheden leert toe te passen in de dagelijkse verpleegkundige praktijk. Door middel van verpleegkundige dossierbesprekingen leren collega’s namelijk op een nieuwe, directe en praktische manier hun eigen klinische onzekerheden te signaleren. Dit motiveert hen om hierover evidence op te (laten) zoeken om hun klinisch verpleegkundig handelen wetenschappelijk te onderbouwen.

Validation of the Dutch version of the critical-care pain observation tool.

BACKGROUND Systematic assessment of pain is necessary for adequate treatment of pain. Patient self-reported pain is a superior assessment but is of limited use for intubated patients in the intensive care unit. For these patients, the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) has been developed. AIM To perform a validation of the Dutch CPOT. STUDY DESIGN Cross-sectional observational study. METHODS The Dutch translation of the CPOT was used. Clinimetric characteristics were analysed in a cross-sectional design. Internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha) was tested by collecting CPOT scores in patients at rest and during turning. Inter-rater reliability was tested by collecting CPOT scores simultaneously by two different nurses who were blinded to each others scores. Criterion validity (area under the curve, sensitivity and specificity) of the Dutch CPOT (index test) was analysed using patient self-reported pain (reference test). RESULTS Cronbachs alpha was 0.56. During rest, the inter-rater reliability was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20-0.53). During turning, the inter-rater reliability was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.42-0.68; area under the curve = 0.65 [95% CI 0.57-0.73]). At a threshold CPOT score of 2, the sensitivity and specificity were 39% and 85%, respectively. CONCLUSION The Dutch CPOT is available for pain assessment in intubated patients unable to self-report. Inter-rater reliability is moderate. At the threshold, a CPOT score of 2, the sensitivity was 39% and the specificity of 85%. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE The CPOT is easy to use for systematic assessment of pain. Additional information about the threshold is valuable for use in daily practice.

Preventable errors with nonopioid analgesics and antiemetic drugs may increase burden in surgical pediatric patients

INTRODUCTION Many hospitalized patients are affected by medication errors (MEs) that may cause discomfort, harm, and even death. Especially, children are considered to be at high risk of experiencing harm due to MEs. More insight into the prevalence, type, and severity of harm caused by MEs could help reduce the frequency of these harmful events. The primary objectives of our study were to establish the prevalence of different types of MEs and the severity of harm caused by MEs in hospitalized children from birth to 18 years of age. In addition, we investigated correlations between harmful MEs and characteristics of the collected data from 426 hospitalized children admitted, and the medication process. METHODS In this cross-sectional study, we identified MEs by reviewing clinical records, making direct observations, monitoring pharmacy logs, and reviewing voluntary incident reports. Subsequently, the MEs were classified according to type of error, medication group and stage of the medication process. Pediatricians rated the severity of the observed harm. RESULTS We collected data from 426 hospitalized children admitted during August to October 2011. A total of 322 MEs were identified, of which 39 caused patient harm. Harmful events were mainly because of wrong time (41%). Pediatricians rated the observed harm as minor in 77% of the incidents and significant in 23%. None of the harmful MEs resulted in permanent harm or was considered life-threatening or fatal. Patients admitted for a surgical procedure were at higher risk for a harmful event compared with patients admitted for nonsurgical reasons (adjusted odds ratio 2.79, 95% confidence interval; 1.35-5.80). Nonopioid analgesics and antiemetic drugs accounted for 67% of the harmful MEs. Harmful MEs occurred most frequently during medication prescription (28%) and administration (62%). CONCLUSION Surgical pediatric patients seem to be at high risk for harmful MEs. Although the harm was considered minor in most cases, it still caused discomfort for the patients, and the high prevalence is a source of concern. Interventions to prevent the MEs should focus on the prescription and administration of nonopioid analgesics and antiemetic drugs.