An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: A multi-method evaluation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose.

AIM

In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long-term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport.

DESIGN

Multi-site, parallel, multi-method, prospective cohort study.

METHODS

A multi-site, multi-method study was carried out in 2020-2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months.

RESULTS

Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow-up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5-10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality.

CONCLUSION

Several recommendations were made to improve the end-user experience including 'how to' instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers.

IMPACT

Patient-/parent-reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record-keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians.

REPORTING METHOD

Not applicable.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months.

Pediatric Central Venous Access Device Lock Solutions: A Network Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Central venous access device (CVAD) locks are routine interventions used to prevent and treat complications, such as infection, thrombosis, and catheter occlusion.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and rank lock-solutions for prevention or treatment of complications in pediatrics. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Five databases and 2 clinical trial registries were searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that enrolled pediatric patients with a CVAD and compared the effectiveness of lock-solutions.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction was conducted by 2 reviewers. Odds ratio (OR) for prevention or treatment of CVAD-associated bloodstream infection (BSI), thrombosis, occlusion, CVAD-failure, and mortality were calculated, with point estimates ranking lock-solutions.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included. Chelating agents and antibiotic locks given as prevention were associated with lower odds (OR: 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-0.67; moderate-quality; OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05-0.79, high-quality, respectively) of CVAD-associated BSI compared with heparinized saline (reference). Preventative thrombolytic agents had lower odds (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.93; low-quality) of CVAD occlusion, whereas ethanol had higher odds (OR: 2.84, 95% CI: 1.31-6.16; high-quality) compared with heparinized saline (reference). No lock solution had effects on thrombosis prevention or treatment, CVAD-failure, CVAD-associated BSI treatment failure, or mortality.

LIMITATIONS

There was substantial uncertainty around the point estimates because of the limited number of studies for outcomes and study heterogeneity. More high-quality studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of lock solutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Chelating agents and antibiotic locks may be effective for CVAD-associated BSI prevention in pediatrics. Thrombolytic agents can be an option for CVAD occlusion prevention, whereas ethanol may not be recommended.

Immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in children with paediatric rheumatic diseases: a scoping review

Children with paediatric rheumatic diseases (PRDs) are at increased risk of vaccine-preventable disease. Safe and effective vaccination is central to preventive care in PRD patients; however, uncertainty surrounding immunogenicity and safety has contributed to suboptimal vaccination. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment effect on immunogenicity to vaccination in PRD patients and assess vaccine safety, specifically adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) and disease flare. Scoping review. In this scoping review, a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases was conducted from 2014 to 23 August 2022 to identify observational studies evaluating the immunogenicity and safety of commonly used vaccinations in PRD patients. The primary outcome was immunogenicity (defined as seroprotection and protective antibody concentrations), with secondary outcomes describing AEFI and disease flare also extracted. Due to extensive heterogeneity related to diagnostic and vaccination variability, narrative synthesis was used to describe the findings of each study. Study quality was assessed via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022307212). The search yielded 19 studies evaluating immunogenicity to vaccination and incidence of AEFI and disease flares in this population, which were of acceptable quality. Corticosteroids did not have deleterious effects on vaccine response. Treatment with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic DMARDs generally had no effect immunogenicity in PRD patients. While patients exhibited adequate seroprotection, protective antibody levels were lower in patients on some immunosuppressant agents. Varicella infections were recorded post vaccination in several patients with low protective antibody levels undergoing treatment with DMARDs and corticosteroids. Most vaccines appear safe and effective in PRD patients, despite immunosuppressant treatment. Booster vaccinations should be considered with some studies highlighting inadequate seroprotection following primary course of vaccinations with acceleration of antibody decline over time. There was limited evidence to support avoiding live vaccines in PRD patients.

Extravasation injury management for neonates and children: A systematic review and aggregated case series

BACKGROUND

Pediatric extravasation injuries are significant healthcare-associated injuries, with sometimes significant sequelae. Evidence-based guidance on management is necessary to prevent permanent injury.

PURPOSE

A systematic review of the literature, including aggregated case series, investigating extravasation injury management of hospitalized pediatric patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cummulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) were searched on December 13, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Primary research investigating extravasation injury management of hospitalized pediatric patients (to 18 years), published from 2010 onwards and in English, independently screened by two authors, with arbitration from a third author.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data regarding the study, patient (age, primary diagnosis), extravasation (site, presentation, outcome), and treatment (first aid, wound management) were extracted by two authors, with arbitration from a third author.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From an initial 1769 articles, 27 studies were included with extractable case data reported in 18 studies, resulting in 33 cases. No clinical trials were identified, instead, studies were primarily case studies (52%) of neonates (67%), with varied extravasation symptoms. Studies had good selection and ascertainment, but few met the causality and reporting requirements for quality assessments. Signs and symptoms varied, with scarring (45%) and necrosis (30%) commonly described. Diverse treatments were categorized into first aid, medical, surgical, and dressings.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite infiltration and extravasation injuries being common within pediatric healthcare, management interventions are under-researched, with low-quality studies and no consensus on treatments or outcomes.