Dataset Information

An innovative postnatal risk assessment and corresponding care pathways in Preventive Child Healthcare.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an innovative postnatal risk assessment (the postnatal Rotterdam Reproductive Risk Reduction checklist: R4U) and corresponding care pathways in Preventive Child Healthcare (PCHC), along with PCHC professional satisfaction.

Design

Four PCHC organizations located in three municipalities with a higher adverse perinatal outcome than the national average were selected for participation. The study concerns a historically controlled study design.

Methods

The study enrolled participants from September 2016 until December 2017. The historical cohort existed of children born in previous years from 2008 until 2016. The outcome measure was defined as catch-up growth: more than 0.67 standard deviation score weight for height increase in the first 6 months of life. PCHC professional opinion was assessed with a digital survey.

Results

After the inclusion period, 1,953 children were included in the intervention cohort and 7,436 children in the historical cohort. Catch-up growth was significantly less common in the intervention cohort; 14.9% versus 19.5% in the historical cohort (p < 0.001). A regression sensitivity analysis, using matching, showed an odds ratio of 0.957 (95% CI 0.938-0.976) for the intervention cohort. In the survey, 74 PCHC physicians and nurses participated; most of them were neutral concerning the benefits of the postnatal R4U.

Conclusion

This study shows that the implementation of a novel postnatal risk assessment including in PCHC is feasible and effective. Final efforts to ensure a widespread implementation should be taken.

Impact

PCHC offers a unique opportunity to recognize and address risk factors for growth and development in children and to implement care pathways. Effective and widely implemented risk assessments in antenatal and PCHC are scarce. To our knowledge, this kind of evidence-based postnatal risk assessment has not been implemented in PCHC before and seizes the opportunity to prevent catch-up growth and its long-term effects.

SUBMITTER: Van Minde MRC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293120 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Children born in families with non-medical risk factors, such as deprivation, have higher odds of preterm birth (<?37 weeks of gestation) or being born small for gestational age (birth weight?<?10th percentile). In addition, growing up they are at risk for growth and developmental problems. Preventive Child Healthcare (PCHC) monitors growth and development of babies and children. Early identification of children at risk could result in early interventions to prevent growth and developmental problems in later life. Therefore, we aimed to assess current practices in postnatal risk screening and care for non-medical risk factors and the collaboration with other healthcare professionals, in both deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. METHODS:Eight out of ten invited PCHC organisations, from different areas in the Netherlands, consented to participate in this study. A questionnaire was designed and digitally distributed to professionals working at these organisations, where 370 physicians and nurses were employed. Data was collected between June and September 2016. Descriptive statistics, chi square tests and t-tests were applied. RESULTS:Eighty-nine questionnaires were eligible for analyses. Twenty percent of the respondents were working in a deprived neighbourhood and 70.8% of the respondents were employed as nurse. Most of them performed screening for non-medical risk factors in at least 50% of their consultations. PCHC professionals working in deprived neighbourhoods encountered significantly more often families with non-medical risk factors and experienced significantly more communication problems than their colleagues working in non-deprived neighbourhoods. 48.2% of the respondents were satisfied with the current form of postnatal risk screening in their organisation, whereas 41.2% felt a need for a structured postnatal risk assessment. Intensified collaboration is preferred with district-teams, general practitioners and midwifes, concerning clients with non-medical risk factors. CONCLUSION:This study shows that postnatal screening for non-medical risk factors is part of current PCHC practice, regardless the neighbourhood status they are deployed. PCHC professionals consider screening for non-medical risk factors as their responsibility. Consequently, they felt a need for a structured postnatal risk assessment and for an intensified collaboration with other healthcare professionals.

Project description:ImportancePrimary care physicians have limited time to discuss preventive care, but it is unknown how they prioritize recommended services.ObjectiveTo understand primary care physicians' prioritization of preventive services.Design, setting, and participantsThis online survey was administered to primary care physicians in a large health care system from March 17 to May 12, 2017. Physicians were asked whether they prioritize preventive services and which factors contribute to their choice (5-point Likert scale). Results were analyzed from July 8, 2017, to September 19, 2019.ExposuresA 2 × 2 factorial design of 2 hypothetical patients: (1) a 50-year-old white woman with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of breast cancer; and (2) a 45-year-old black man with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of colorectal cancer. Two visit lengths (40 minutes vs 20 minutes) were given. Each patient was eligible for at least 11 preventive services.Main outcomes and measuresPhysicians rated their likelihood of discussing each service during the visit and reported their top 3 priorities for patients 1 and 2. Physician choices were compared with the preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy, using a previously published mathematical model.ResultsOf 241 physicians, 137 responded (57%), of whom 74 (54%) were female and 85 (62%) were younger than 50 years. Physicians agreed they prioritized preventive services (mean score, 4.27 [95% CI, 4.12-4.42] of 5.00), mostly by ability to improve quality (4.56 [95% CI, 4.44-4.68] of 5.00) or length (4.53 [95% CI, 4.40-4.66] of 5.00) of life. Physicians reported more prioritization in the 20- vs 40-minute visit, indicating that they were likely to discuss fewer services during the shorter visit (median, 5 [interquartile range {IQR}, 3-8] vs 11 [IQR, 9-13] preventive services for patient 1, and 4 [IQR, 3-6] vs 9 [IQR, 8-11] for patient 2). Physicians reported similar top 3 priorities for both patients: smoking cessation, hypertension control, and glycemic control for patient 1 and smoking cessation, hypertension control, and colorectal cancer screening for patient 2. Physicians' top 3 priorities did not usually include diet and exercise or weight loss (ranked in their top 3 recommendations for either patient by only 48 physicians [35%]), although these were among the 3 preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy based on the mathematical model.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, physicians prioritized preventive services under time constraints, but priorities did not vary across patients. Physicians did not prioritize lifestyle interventions despite large potential benefits. Future research should consider whether physicians and patients would benefit from guidance on preventive care priorities.

Project description:BackgroundMozambican healthcare workers have high rates of latent and active tuberculosis, but occupational screening for tuberculosis is not routine in this setting. Furthermore, the specificity of tuberculin skin testing in this population compared with interferon gamma release assay testing has not been established.MethodsThis study was conducted among healthcare workers at Maputo Central Hospital, a public teaching quaternary care hospital in Mozambique. With a cross sectional study design, risk factors for tuberculosis were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. The care cascade is reported for participants who were prescribed six months of isoniazid preventive therapy for HIV or highly reactive testing for latent tuberculosis infection. The agreement of interferon-gamma release assay results with positive tuberculin skin testing was calculated.ResultsOf 690 screened healthcare workers, three (0.4%) had active tuberculosis and 426 (61.7%) had latent tuberculosis infection. Less education, age 35-49, longer hospital service, and work in the surgery department were associated with increased likelihood of being tuberculosis infected at baseline (p <?0.05). Sex, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccination, HIV, outside tuberculosis contacts, and professional category were not. Three new cases of active tuberculosis developed during the follow-up period, two while on preventive therapy. Among 333 participants offered isoniazid preventive therapy, five stopped due to gastrointestinal side effects and 181 completed treatment. For HIV seropositive individuals, the agreement of interferon gamma release assay positivity with positive tuberculin skin testing was 50% among those with a quantitative skin test result of 5-10?mm, and among those with a skin test result ?10?mm it was 87.5%. For HIV seronegative individuals, the agreement of interferon gamma release assay positivity with a tuberculin skin test result of 10-14?mm was 63.6%, and for those with a quantitative skin test result ?15?mm it was 82.2%.ConclusionsThere is a high prevalence of tuberculosis infected healthcare workers at Maputo Central Hospital. The surgery department was most heavily affected, suggesting occupational risk. Isoniazid preventive therapy initiation was high and just over half completed therapy. An interferon gamma release assay was useful to discern LTBI from false positives among those with lower quantitative tuberculin skin test results.

Project description:BackgroundThe Risk Assessment for moving Individuals SafEly (RAISE) program is a hospital-based manual handling nursing training program. RAISE involves upskilling on continual risk assessment during patient-assisted movements. RAISE aims to optimise staff and patient safety while providing the patient with movement and rehabilitation opportunities. Implementation of RAISE in the hospital setting has been established. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of implementing RAISE in the long-term care setting.MethodsWe examined three feasibility domains: acceptability, practicality, and limited efficacy (observed nursing behaviour change which has the potential to reduce nursing injuries), using a prospective pilot pre-post design in the long-term care setting. Staff completed a 4-hour training session on RAISE delivered by two physiotherapists, followed by 8 h of supported behaviour change in the workplace. Staff acceptability and practicality of incorporating risk assessment strategies into manual handling approaches were explored through pre- and post-training staff surveys and a semi-structured interview. Resident acceptability of manual handling practices was explored via survey data collected after the RAISE training. Pre to post-training changes in staff knowledge and behaviour were examined through the pre- and post-training staff survey, and observation of staff assisting resident movement.ResultsTwo enrolled nurses and five residents participated. Staff reported the RAISE program was acceptable and practical to implement in the long-term care setting. There were no adverse events or safety concerns. Staff reported the RAISE program provided guidance and enhanced staff empowerment to make decisions during assisted resident movement. There were 26 observed resident-staff manual handling interactions recorded, with 13 pre-training and 13 post-training. Post-training, RAISE skills had improved and were completed 100% of the time, except for completing a physical risk assessment which improved from 46 to 85%, demonstrating limited efficacy. Residents reported it's important for staff to be trained on how to assist them to mobilise and they found the concept of the RAISE program acceptable.ConclusionsThis pilot study supports the feasibility of long-term care facilities participating in future studies testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Risk Assessment for moving Individuals SafEly (RAISE) patient and resident manual handling program.