Survey of administration of medicines to pupils in primary schools within the London area

Provision and Supervision of Food and Protein Substitute in School for Children with PKU: Parent Experiences

Children spend a substantial part of their childhood in school, so provision of dietary care and inclusion of children with phenylketonuria (PKU) in this setting is essential. There are no reports describing the dietary support children with PKU receive whilst at school. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the experiences of the dietary management of children with PKU in schools across the UK. Data was collected using an online survey completed by parents/caregivers of children with PKU. Of 159 questionnaire responses, 92% (n = 146) of children attended state school, 6% (n = 10) private school and 2% (n = 3) other. Fourteen per cent (n = 21/154) were at nursery/preschool, 51% (n = 79/154) primary and 35% (n = 54/154) secondary school. Sixty-one per cent (n = 97/159) said their child did not have school meals, with some catering services refusing to provide suitable food and some parents distrusting the school meals service. Sixty-one per cent of children had an individual health care plan (IHCP) (n = 95/155). Children were commonly unsupervised at lunchtime (40%, n = 63/159), with snacks (46%, n = 71/155) and protein substitute (30%, n = 47/157), with significantly less supervision in secondary than primary school (p < 0.001). An IHCP was significantly associated with improved supervision of food and protein substitute administration (p < 0.01), and better communication between parents/caregivers and the school team (p < 0.05). Children commonly accessed non-permitted foods in school. Therefore, parents/caregivers described important issues concerning the school provision of low phenylalanine food and protein substitute. Every child should have an IHCP which details their dietary needs and how these will be met safely and discreetly. It is imperative that children with PKU are supported in school.

Asthma education for school staff

BACKGROUND

Teachers and school staff should be competent in managing asthma in schools. Demonstrated low levels of asthma knowledge mean that staff may not know how best to protect a child with asthma in their care, or may fail to take appropriate action in the event of a serious attack. Education about asthma could help to improve this knowledge and lead to better asthma outcomes for children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of asthma education programmes for school staff, and to identify content and attributes underpinning them.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention to educate school staff about asthma versus a control group. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors screened the searches, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were emergency department (ED) or hospital visits, mortality and asthma control; we graded the main results and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table. We planned a qualitative synthesis of intervention characteristics, but study authors were unable to provide the necessary information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we narratively described skewed data.

MAIN RESULTS

Five cluster-RCTs of 111 schools met the review eligibility criteria. Investigators measured outcomes in participating staff and often in children or parents, most often at between 1 and 12 months.All interventions were educational programmes but duration, content and delivery varied; some involved elements of training for pupils or primary care providers. We noted risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition biases, although to a differing extent across studies and outcomes.Quanitative and qualitative analyses were limited. Only one study reported visits to the ED or hospital and provided data that were too skewed for analysis. No studies reported any deaths or adverse events. Studies did not report asthma control consistently, but results showed no difference between groups on the paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.31; 1005 participants; we downgraded the quality of evidence to low for risk of bias and indirectness). Data for symptom days, night-time awakenings, restricted activities of daily living and school absences were skewed or could not be analysed; some mean scores were better in the trained group, but most differences between groups were small and did not persist to 24 months.Schools that received asthma education were more adherent to asthma policies, and staff were better prepared; more schools that had received staff asthma training had written asthma policies compared with control schools, more intervention schools showed improvement in measures taken to prevent or manage exercise-induced asthma attacks and more staff at intervention schools reported that they felt able to administer salbutamol via a spacer. However, the quality of the evidence was low; results show imbalances at baseline, and confidence in the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Staff knowledge was higher in groups that had received asthma education, although results were inconsistent and difficult to interpret owing to differences between scales (low quality).Available information about the interventions was insufficient for review authors to conduct a meaningful qualitative synthesis of the content that led to a successful intervention, or of the resources required to replicate results accurately.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Asthma education for school staff increases asthma knowledge and preparedness, but studies vary and all available evidence is of low quality. Studies have not yet captured whether this improvement in knowledge has led to appreciable benefits over the short term or the longer term for the safety and health of children with asthma in school. Randomised evidence does not contribute to our knowledge of content or attributes of interventions that lead to the best outcomes, or of resources required for successful implementation.Complete reporting of the content and resources of educational interventions is essential for assessment of their effectiveness and feasibility for implementation. This applies to both randomised and non-randomised studies, although the latter may be better placed to observe important clinical outcomes such as exacerbations and mortality in the longer term.

Medicines in schools: a cross-sectional survey of children, parents, teachers and health professionals

OBJECTIVES

To describe how individual schools manage medicines and strategies for implementation of guidance, to determine the nature of problems perceived by children, parents, teachers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in relation to medicines management in schools and to highlight differences between these perceptions.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey study in which questionnaires were completed by children, their parents and carers, groups of HCPs and head teachers.

RESULTS

There were 158 respondents to this survey. The management of medicines varies between schools and this reflects how policy guidance is interpreted and is revealed by the differences in experience described. Head teachers acknowledge that there is a lack of expertise about medicines among their staff and they rely on interpretation of and adherence to policy and procedure and compliance with training was used as a measure of good medicines management. There are inconsistencies in how information about medicines is communicated between the healthcare team, families and schools, and there is evidence that this communication is not always timely or effective. This results in problems with medicines at school. Parents emphasised the need for staff at school to understand their child's condition and their medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences between how individual schools manage medicines and interpret policy guidance and discrepancies between the views of each stakeholder group. There is some evidence that medicines management does not always meet the needs of children and their families. Fewer than half of parents and HCPs are satisfied with how medicines are dealt with in schools.

Teacher-reported prevalence and management of child health problems at primary school

We explored primary school teacher-reported experiences, prevalence and management of child health and developmental problems and medication administration from one multi-ethnic urban community in England. A survey was delivered to 90 reception class teachers in 45 primary schools, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of eight respondents. Fifty-six percent of teachers completed the questionnaire. Findings suggest that teachers and school staff may represent an underused resource for identifying children with developmental and health conditions and that the connections formed between schools and families could be utilized by other services by delivering interventions in schools where possible. Whilst most schools use a policy to inform the management of child health in school, some key areas such as training and documentation of medication administration may not be followed in practice. Interview findings supported and expanded on survey data by identifying barriers to collaboration between services and families.

Medication management in comprehensive schools in Finland: teachers’ perceptions

Objective

Many children who take medication require it during school time, and their participation in school activities could depend on it. The aim of this study was to identify whether schools have guidelines for medication management and to explore teachers’ perceptions about medication administration practices and the characteristics affecting these practices using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as the framework.

Methods

A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted in Finland in 2010 covering a representative sample of comprehensive school teachers (n = 1700). The survey included sections on guidelines and practices for medication administration, beliefs about medicines, and background information on the respondent and the respondent’s school. Quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis were used.

Key findings

The response rate was 56% (928/1664). At the national level (macrosystem), teachers reported uncertainty about existing laws and guidelines, while at the local level (exosystem), most of the teachers reported having medication management guidelines (73% primary; 76% lower secondary school). However, a majority described guidelines instructing them not to administer medicines to pupils. Medication management practices were found to differ depending on the province and size of school. At the personal level (microsystem), practices were also affected by teachers’ experience of, and views about, medicines.

Conclusion

No consistent medication administration guidelines exist in Finnish schools. Challenges were identified at all system levels of ecological theory. To ensure proper medication management, school staff need clear and consistent guidance developed in co-operation between different professions, and exploring ways to involve pharmacists in this task.

The administration of rescue medication to children with prolonged acute convulsive seizures in the community: what happens in practice?

This paper presents the findings of a review of existing clinical and non-clinical guidance on the management of children with prolonged acute convulsive seizures (PCS) and the administration of rescue medication in community settings. Findings are based on desk- and web-based research in 6 countries. Published clinical guidelines are mostly limited to the hospital setting and offer few explicit recommendations for community settings. Non-clinical guidance on the management of medicines at school exists at the national or regional level in all 6 countries, however rescue epilepsy medication is often not mentioned specifically. Existing legal frameworks are vague and open to interpretation. As a result, whether a child receives rescue medication at school depends primarily on the availability of a willing teacher who accepts responsibility for administering it to that child during school hours. Comprehensive guidelines are clearly needed that provide practical guidance to ensure that children with PCS are treated as quickly as possible in all community settings. Recommendations for future action include: providing clearer information on PCS and rescue medication to parents and schools; putting in place an individual healthcare plan for every child with a history of PCS at his or her school; collecting more empirical data to gain a better understanding of the experience of children with PCS at school, their parents and teachers; and finally, implementing systematic training for all carers of children with PCS. The epilepsy specialist may play an important role in ensuring that these recommendations are put into place for their patients.

Comparing school environments with and without legislation for the prevention and management of anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

  School personnel in contact with students with life-threatening allergies often lack necessary supports, creating a potentially dangerous situation. Sabrina's Law, the first legislation in the world designed to protect such children, requires all Ontario public schools to have a plan to protect children at risk. Although it has captured international attention, the differences a legislative approach makes have not been identified. Our study compared the approaches to anaphylaxis prevention and management in schools with and without legislation.

METHODS

  Legislated (Ontario) and nonlegislated (Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec) environments were compared. School board anaphylaxis policies were assessed for consistency with Canadian anaphylaxis guidelines. Parents of at-risk children and school personnel were surveyed to determine their perspectives on school practices. School personnel's EpiPen5 technique was assessed.

RESULTS

  Consistency of school board policies with anaphylaxis guidelines was significantly better in a legislated environment (P=0.009). Parents in a legislated environment reported more comprehensive anaphylaxis emergency forms (P<0.001), while school personnel in nonlegislated environments reported more comprehensive forms (P=0.004). Despite school personnel in both environments receiving EpiPen5 training (>80%), suboptimal technique was commonly observed. However, school personnel in the legislated environment had better technique (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

  Our results suggest that school boards in legislated environments have made greater efforts to support students at risk for anaphylaxis compared to nonlegislated environments. However, significant gaps exist in both environments, especially with respect to EpiPen5 administration, content, and distribution of anaphylaxis emergency forms, and awareness of school procedures by school personnel and parents.

Young people's experiences of managing asthma and diabetes at school

PURPOSE

To examine the experiences and concerns of young people and their parents regarding the management of medication for asthma or diabetes whilst at school.

METHODS

Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 69 young people aged 8-15 years (43 with asthma and 26 with diabetes) and their parents (138 interviews in total) in their own homes. Respondents were recruited through randomly selected general practice surgeries in contrasting areas in South East England. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using established qualitative analytical procedures.

RESULTS

Young people with asthma and diabetes discussed difficulties regarding access to and use of their medicines at school which may jeopardise optimal condition management. School medicines policies could be a further hindrance. Young people endeavour to find ways to accommodate their medication and condition related needs whilst at school, in an attempt to limit the impact of their condition upon school activities such as sport, school trips and relationships with peers. Parents expressed concern regarding the awareness and levels of support available to their sons/daughters, in particular if a crisis should develop.

DISCUSSION

In order to ensure optimal care, there is a need for the development of protocols tailored to the needs of young people with different conditions. These should preferably be devised in partnership between the young person, their parents and the school to ensure that the flexibility and support required for optimal management are offered.

Managing medication in schools

Increasing numbers of children and young people are prescribed medication to be taken in school. This article discusses general principles of prescribing medication for use in school, specific conditions for which medicines may be prescribed, and the key role of nurses in liaison with schools. Decisions about prescribing medication for use in schools do not only depend on evidence of therapeutic effectiveness but need to take into account other social and educational benefits and harms that may occur when children need to use medication in school.