Helping parents know when to seek help for an acutely ill child: Evidence based co-development of a mobile phone app using complex intervention methodology

BACKGROUND

Acute illness accounts for the majority of episodes of illness in children under five years of age and is the age group with the highest consultation rate in general practice in the UK. The number of children presenting to emergency care is also steadily increasing, having risen beyond pre-pandemic numbers. Such high, and increasing, rates of consultation have prompted concerns about parents' level of knowledge and confidence in caring for their children when they are ill, and particularly when and how to seek help appropriately.

AIM

The ASK SNIFF collaboration research programme identified parents' need for accurate and accessible information to help them know when to seek help for a sick child in 2010. This paper presents the resulting programme of research which aimed to co-develop an evidence-based safety netting intervention (mobile app) to help parents know when to seek help for an acutely ill child under the age of five years in the UK.

METHODS

Our programme used a collaborative six step process with 147 parent and 324 health professional participants over a period of six years including: scoping existing interventions, systematic review, qualitative research, video capture, content identification and development, consensus methodology, parent and expert clinical review.

RESULTS

Our programme has produced evidence-based content for an app supported by video clips. Our collaborative approach has supported every stage of our work, ensuring that the end result reflects the experiences, perspectives and expressed needs of parents and the clinicians they consult.

CONCLUSION

We have not found any other resource which has used this type of approach, which may explain why there is no published evaluation data demonstrating the impact of existing UK resources. Future mobile apps should be designed and developed with the service users for whom they are intended.

SAFETY NETTING CONCEPT IN PRIMARY CARE CONSULTATION

Introduction

Patient safety in primary care setting is important and effort geared towards this cannot be over-emphasised. Patient safety can be achieved through various means, but one mechanism to improve patient safety in resourceconstrained settings is through a practice known as safety netting. Safety netting is widely recommended in national guidelines with varying definitions and scope; hence there is no consensus on when safety netting should be used and what should be the content.

Methodology

A narrative overview of the evidence on safety netting concept in primary care consultation was conducted. Scholastic articles and Papers by International organizations were searched using terms like 'safety netting', 'primary care consultation', 'family physician', 'consultation technique', and 'patient safety' in primary care. Most resources found were in the developed countries (the West) and none was found in Africa or the Middle East.Safety netting is a technique in consultation to communicate uncertainty, provide patient information on red-flag symptoms, and plan for future appointments to ensure timely re-assessment of a patient's condition. The content of safetynetting advice may encompass the chronology of the illness, advice on worrying symptoms to look out for, and specific information on how, when and where to seek help. Safety netting was considered to be particularly important when consulting with the acutely unwell, patients with multi-morbidity, children and those with mental health problems.

Conclusion

Safety netting is more than solely the communication of uncertainty within a consultation. It should include plans for follow-up as well as important administrative aspects, such as the communication of test results. Effective safety netting should be geared towards the patient and provide enough practical clue for self-care and re-consultation.

Evaluation of 13,466 Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Patients Attending Primary Care for High- and Low-Risk Gastrointestinal Symptoms of Colorectal Cancer

AIM/OBJECTIVE

Quantitative fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) were recommended by NICE for patients in primary care presenting with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer (CRC). FIT is more accurate in the detection of CRC than symptom criteria. Despite this, CRC still occurs with a negative FIT and the importance of safety netting for patients with severe or persistent symptoms is paramount. We aimed to evaluate the utilization and accuracy of FIT for CRC in low and high-risk symptom groups presenting to primary care, the effectiveness of safety netting in primary care, referral practices with FIT utilization for symptomatic patients and the clinical features of FIT negative patients with CRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records and databases of all patients undertaking a FIT sample in the Herts Valleys CCG between June 2019 and November 2021 were reviewed. 13,466 consecutive FIT samples were requested for 12,231 patients between June 2019 and November 2021.

RESULTS

Analysis of diagnostic accuracy was undertaken for the first 5341 patients with a minimum of 12 months follow up. Sensitivity for CRC, in FIT ≥ 4 µg Hb/g, ≥ 10 µg Hb/g and ≥ 100 µg Hb/g was 93% (95% CI 85-98%), 91% (95% CI 82-96%) and 72% (95% CI 60-81%) with a number needed to investigate of 36, 19 and 6, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A FIT ≥ 10 µg Hb/g in conjunction with ongoing GP clinical concern within 8 weeks had a sensitivity for CRC of 97% (95% CI 90-100%), a PPV of 3.6% (95% CI 3.4-3.7%) and a number needed to investigate to detect one CRC of 28.

Protocol for a feasibility study incorporating a randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer!: a primary care intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis in Wales

BACKGROUND

Compared to the rest of Europe, the UK has relatively poor cancer outcomes, with late diagnosis and a slow referral process being major contributors. General practitioners (GPs) are often faced with patients presenting with a multitude of non-specific symptoms that could be cancer. Safety netting can be used to manage diagnostic uncertainty by ensuring patients with vague symptoms are appropriately monitored, which is now even more crucial due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its major impact on cancer referrals. The ThinkCancer! workshop is an educational behaviour change intervention aimed at the whole general practice team, designed to improve primary care approaches to ensure timely diagnosis of cancer. The workshop will consist of teaching and awareness sessions, the appointment of a Safety Netting Champion and the development of a bespoke Safety Netting Plan and has been adapted so it can be delivered remotely. This study aims to assess the feasibility of the ThinkCancer! intervention for a future definitive randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

The ThinkCancer! study is a randomised, multisite feasibility trial, with an embedded process evaluation and feasibility economic analysis. Twenty-three to 30 general practices will be recruited across Wales, randomised in a ratio of 2:1 of intervention versus control who will follow usual care. The workshop will be delivered by a GP educator and will be adapted iteratively throughout the trial period. Baseline practice characteristics will be collected via questionnaire. We will also collect primary care intervals (PCI), 2-week wait (2WW) referral rates, conversion rates and detection rates at baseline and 6 months post-randomisation. Participant feedback, researcher reflections and economic costings will be collected following each workshop. A process evaluation will assess implementation using an adapted Normalisation Measure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire and qualitative interviews. An economic feasibility analysis will inform a future economic evaluation.

DISCUSSION

This study will allow us to test and further develop a novel evidenced-based complex intervention aimed at general practice teams to expedite the diagnosis of cancer in primary care. The results from this study will inform the future design of a full-scale definitive phase III trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04823559 .

Assessment and management of cauda equina syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a rare condition that affects the nerves in the spine supplying the bladder, bowel and sexual function. Identification and subsequent urgent action is required to avoid permanent damage to these essential organs. Delays in diagnosis can have devastating and life changing consequences for patients and result in high cost negligence claims.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this masterclass is to examine the current evidence and provide an evidence-based, clinically reasoned approach in the safe management of patients presenting with CES. It will include a focus on the importance of communication, documentation and a practical approach to safety netting those at risk.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

CES has significant implications for patients and clinicians alike. Timely, effective diagnosis and management of patients with CES results in a better outcome.

Characteristics of revisits of children at risk for serious infections in pediatric emergency care

In this study, we aimed to identify characteristics of (unscheduled) revisits and its optimal time frame after Emergency Department (ED) discharge. Children with fever, dyspnea, or vomiting/diarrhea (1 month-16 years) who attended the ED of Erasmus MC-Sophia, Rotterdam (2010-2013), the Netherlands, were prospectively included. Three days after ED discharge, we applied standardized telephonic questionnaires on disease course and revisits. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent characteristics of revisits. Young age, parental concern, and alarming signs and symptoms (chest wall retractions, ill appearance, clinical signs of dehydration, and tachypnea) were associated with revisits (n = 527) in children at risk for serious infections discharged from the ED (n = 1765). Children revisited the ED within a median of 2 days (IQR 1.0-3.0), but this was proven to be shorter in children with vomiting/diarrhea (1.0 day (IQR 1.0-2.0)) compared to children with fever or dyspnea (2.0 (IQR 1.0-3.0)).

CONCLUSION

Young age, parental concern, and alarming signs and symptoms (chest wall retractions, ill appearance, clinical signs of dehydration, and tachypnea) were associated with emergency health care revisits in children with fever, dyspnea, and vomiting/diarrhea. These characteristics could help to define targeted review of children during post-discharge period. We observed a disease specific and differential timing of control revisits after ED discharge. What is Known • Fever, dyspnea, and vomiting/diarrhea are major causes of emergency care attendance in children. • As uncertainty remains on uneventful recovery, patients at risk need to be identified on order to improve safety netting after discharge from the ED. What is New • In children with fever, dyspnea, and vomiting/diarrhea, young age, parental concern and chest wall retractions, ill appearance, clinical signs of dehydration, and tachypnea help to define targeted review of children during the post-discharge period. • A revisit after ED discharge is disease-specific and seems to be shorter for children with vomiting/diarrhea than others.