Dataset Information

Confirming longline position in neonates - Survey of practice in England and Wales.

ABSTRACT: To establish how neonatal units in England and Wales currently confirm longline tip position, immediately after insertion of a longline.We conducted a telephone survey of 170 neonatal units (37 special care baby units, 81 local neonatal units and 52 neonatal intensive care units) across England and Wales over the period from January to May 2016. Data was collected on specifically designed proformas. We gathered information on the following: Unit Level designation; whether the unit used longlines and specific type used? Modality used to confirm longline tip position? Whether guide wires were routinely removed and contrast injected to determine longline position? The responders were primarily senior nurses.We had 100% response rate. Out of the total neonatal units surveyed (170) in England and Wales, 141 units (83%) used longlines. Fifty-five out of 81 local neonatal units (68%) using longlines, used ones that came with guide wires; a similar percentage of neonatal intensive care units, i.e., 31 out of 52 units (60%) did the same. All of those units used radiography, plain X-rays, to establish longline tip position. Out of 55 local neonatal units using longlines with guide wires, 42 (76%) were not removing wire to use contrast while this figure was 58% (18 out of 31 units) for neonatal intensive care units. Overall, only 49 out of 141 units (35%) of the units using longlines were using contrast. However it was interesting to note that use of contrast increased as one moved from special care baby units (25%, 2 out of 8 units) to local neonatal units (28%, 23 out of 81 units) and neonatal intensive care units level (46%, 24 out of 52 units) designation.Neonatal units in England and Wales are overwhelmingly relying on plain radiographs to assess longline tip position immediately after insertion. Despite evidence of its usefulness, and in the absence of perhaps more accurate methods of assessing longline tip position in a reliable and consistent way, e.g., ultrasonography, contrast is only used in a third of units.

SUBMITTER: Arunoday A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5547426 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The Mental Capacity Act (2005) of England and Wales described in statute a test to determine whether a person lacked the "mental capacity" to make a particular decision. No large-scale survey has explored experiences of capacity assessment across professional groups. Methods: We administered an opportunistic self-report questionnaire survey of professionals who undertake capacity assessments in England and Wales (n= 611). Topics of interest included; how often and where capacity assessment took place, self-ratings of competency and challenges experienced in assessment, use of psychological testing and concerns about undue influence. We analysed the quantitative responses using a mixed-methods approach using regression methods for the quantitative ratings and a thematic analysis for qualitative data. Results: Our sample included 307/611 (50.2%), social workers, 89/611 (14.6%) psychiatrists, 62/611 (10.1%) nurses, 46/611 (7.5%) clinical psychologists, 30/611 (4.9%) doctors from other medical specialties, 12/611 (2.0%) speech and language therapists and 8/611 (1.3%) solicitors. 53% of these professionals undertook more than 25 capacity assessments per year, with psychiatrists, social workers and nurses undertaking them the most frequently. Most professionals reported high self-ratings of confidence in their assessment skills, although non-psychiatrist doctors rated themselves significantly lower than other groups (p< .005). Most professionals (77.1%) were at least moderately concerned about undue influence, with people with dementia and learning disabilities and older adults considered to be the most at risk. Qualitative themes for challenges in capacity assessment included inter-disciplinary working, complicated presentations and relational issues such as interpersonal influence. Requests for support mainly focused on practical issues. Conclusions: Most professionals feel confident in their ability to assess capacity but note substantial challenges around practical and relational issues. Undue influence is a particularly common concern amongst professionals when working with service users with dementia and learning disabilities which public services and policy makers need to be mindful of.

Project description:BackgroundThe recent World Report on Disability highlighted violence as a leading cause of morbidity among disabled people. However, we know little about the extent to which people with disability experience different violence types, and associated health/economic costs. The recent introduction of disability measures into the England&Wales victimization survey provided an opportunity to address this gap.Methods and findingsAnalysis of the 2009/10 British Crime Survey (BCS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of 44,398 adults living in residential households in England&Wales. Using multivariate logistic regression, we estimated the relative odds of being a victim of past-year violence (physical/sexual domestic or non-domestic violence) in people with disability compared to those without, after adjusting for socio-demographics, behavioural and area confounders. 1256/44398(2.4%) participants had one or more disabilities including mental illness ('mental illness') and 7781(13.9%) had one or more disabilities excluding mental illness ('non-mental disability'). Compared with the non-disabled, those with mental illness had adjusted relative odds (aOR) of 3.0(95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3-3.8) and those with non-mental disability had aOR of 1.8(95% CI: 1.5-2.2) of being a victim of past-year violence (with similar relative odds for domestic and non-domestic violence). Disabled victims were more likely to suffer mental ill health as a result of violence than non-disabled victims. The proportion of violence that could be attributed to the independent effect of disability in the general population was 7.5%(CI 5.7-9.3%), at an estimated cost of £1.51 billion. The main study limitation is the exclusion of institutionalised people with disability.ConclusionsPeople with disability are at increased risk of being victims of domestic and non-domestic violence, and of suffering mental ill health when victimized. The related public health and economic burden calls for an urgent assessment of the causes of this violence, and national policies on violence prevention in this vulnerable group.

Dataset Information

Confirming longline position in neonates - Survey of practice in England and Wales.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets