Promoting child safety in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial to reduce baby walker use.

BACKGROUND: Baby walkers are commonly used items of nursery equipment, but cause more than 3000 injuries each year in the UK. There is currently little evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions in primary care to reduce walker use. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of an educational package provided by midwives and health visitors to reduce baby walker possession and use. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Sixty-four general practices in Nottingham and North Nottinghamshire, UK. METHOD: An educational package aimed at discouraging mothers-to-be from obtaining and using a walker was delivered by midwives and health visitors to 1174 mothers-to-be of at least 28 weeks gestation. The control arm received usual care. Primary outcome measures were the possession and use of a walker. Secondary outcome measures included the frequency and duration of walker use, knowledge and attitudes towards walkers, plans to use a walker with future children, recommending a walker to a friend, and use of stair gates and fire guards. RESULTS: Intervention arm participants were significantly less likely to own (odds ratio [OR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.43 to 0.93) or to use a walker (OR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.84). They were significantly less likely to plan to use a walker with their next child (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.86) or to agree that walkers keep children safe (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.78). There was some evidence that they were less likely to recommend a walker to a friend (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.91) or to agree that they help children to walk more quickly (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: An educational package delivered by midwives and health visitors was effective in reducing baby walker possession and use. Providers of primary healthcare services should include baby walker education in their injury prevention strategy and child health promotion programme.

Midwives' knowledge of, attitudes to and practice with baby walkers.

OBJECTIVE: to determine community midwives' knowledge, attitudes and practice with regard to baby walkers. DESIGN: survey, using questionnaires. SETTING: primary care, East Midlands, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-five community midwives participating in a cluster randomised controlled trial to reduce baby walker use. FINDINGS: there was a 94% response. Seventy per cent of the midwives, felt that it was part of their role to discuss baby walkers, and 62% felt that giving advice about walkers before birth acceptable. The midwives had a limited knowledge of baby walker injury risk and only one midwife had any baby walker-related health education material. Three attitude scales were computed and indicated that the midwives held a negative view of baby walkers and were positive about baby walker health education, believing that parents hold a positive attitude to baby walkers. Those midwives who had used a walker with their own children were more positive about baby walkers and less positive about baby walker health education. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: midwives are willing to be involved in baby walker health education during pregnancy. However, they require evidence-based knowledge and materials rather than relying on personal experience.

Collecting genetic information in primary care: evaluating a new family history tool.

BACKGROUND: The family history is a time-honoured method for identifying genetic predisposition. In specialist practice the standard approach is to draw up a family tree based on a genetic pedigree interview, but this is too time-consuming and focused on single gene disorders to be applicable in primary care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the ability of a brief self-administered Family History Questionnaire (FHQ), given to patients when they register with a GP, to identify genetic risk. METHODS: A comparative study. Informants completed an FHQ at registration, and later participated in a genetic pedigree interview. Two clinical geneticists independently scored results obtained with each instrument. Discrepancies were agreed by consensus. The genetic risks identified by the two instruments were compared. RESULTS: 326 new registrants completed the FHQ, and 121 also completed the genetic interview. 24% of FHQs and 36% of genetic interviews resulted in a score 'higher than population risk'. There was 77% agreement in the scores obtained with the two instruments, with a moderate kappa of 0.52. (95% CI 0.40-0.64). There was 90% agreement in the scores for a family history of premature coronary heart disease (Kappa 0.67; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85). The instruments were equally effective in identifying ethnicity-related risk of common recessive disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The FHQ identified most informants with genetic risks that are appropriately addressed in primary care-those with a family history of premature coronary heart disease, those warranting specialist referral, and those who might appropriately be offered carrier testing. However, it was less effective in identifying those with a possible Mendelian disorder for whom more information was required.

The genetics liaison nurse role as a means of educating and supporting primary care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Previous research with primary health care professionals has demonstrated consistently that education, training and support are necessary before there should be any expansion in primary care genetics. The genetic liaison nurse role has been suggested as one means of providing this education and support. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate GP responses to the genetics liaison nurse role as a means of supporting community-based genetics services. METHODS: A self-completion postal questionnaire in primary care was sent to GPs working in Nottingham. Main outcome measures were assessment of potential usage of a genetic outreach professional in terms of time, roles and support for a pilot scheme RESULTS: A total of 182 (55.0%) of 331 GPs working in Nottingham returned a questionnaire. Although 54% did not believe that the genetics liaison nurse role would be useful in the present, most believed that such a role would definitely or probably (64%) be useful in the future. The most valued contribution was as a source of advice when genetics problems arise in a consultation. Providing education on specific genetic disorders and on clinical skills relevant to genetics were also seen as important. Many GPs would also use a liaison nurse to see patients prior to their attending an out-patient clinic with a clinical geneticist. Respondents suggested that each nurse should spend approximately 3 hours a month in each practice and be attached to between 10 and 20 practices. CONCLUSIONS: GPs appreciate that there may be limited genetics services provided in primary care at present, but this is likely to change in the near future. The genetics liaison nurse role should be evaluated as a means of providing genetics specialist outreach support for service delivery and to facilitate education.

Baby walkers--health visitors' current practice, attitudes and knowledge.

BACKGROUND: Baby walkers are a commonly used item of nursery equipment. Between 12% and 50% of parents whose infant uses a walker report that their child has suffered a walker-related injury. Health visitors' knowledge, attitudes and practice with regard to walkers and related health education has not been explored so far. AIM: The aim of the study was to describe health visitors' knowledge of walkers and walker-related injuries, their attitudes towards walkers and current practice with regard to walker health education, and to examine the relationship between knowledge and attitudes and knowledge and practice. METHOD: A survey was carried out with 64 health visitors prior to participation in a randomized controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of an educational package in reducing baby walker use. RESULTS: The response rate was 95%. Half of the health visitors always discussed walkers postnatally, most frequently at the 6-9 month check. Most did not usually discuss the frequency of walker-related injuries. Most had negative attitudes towards walkers, but believed that parents hold positive attitudes to them and that it is hard to persuade parents not to use them. Health visitors had a limited knowledge of walker use and walker-related injuries. Those giving advice on walkers most often had higher knowledge scores than those giving advice less often (P = 0.03). Those with higher knowledge scores held more negative attitudes towards walkers (rs = 0.29, P = 0.023) and believed parents to have more positive attitudes towards walkers (rs = -0.49, P < 0.001). Few health visitors had resources to discuss walkers. CONCLUSIONS: Health visitor advice regarding walkers needs to be given earlier in the postnatal period than is currently common practice, and they need more knowledge about walker use and related injuries. Education about baby walkers needs to be incorporated into undergraduate and in-service education, which may need to include the development of skills in exploring reasons why parents use walkers and in negotiating alternatives to their use. The provision of audio-visual aids for discussing walkers might also be helpful.

The electronic patient record in primary care--regression or progression? A cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether paperless medical records contained less information than paper based medical records and whether that information was harder to retrieve. DESIGN: Cross sectional study with review of medical records and interviews with general practitioners. SETTING: 25 general practices in Trent region. PARTICIPANTS: 53 British general practitioners (25 using paperless records and 28 using paper based records) who each provided records of 10 consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content of a sample of records and doctor recall of consultations for which paperless or paper based records had been made. RESULTS: Compared with paper based records, more paperless records were fully understandable (89.2% v 69.9%, P=0.0001) and fully legible (100% v 64.3%, P < 0.0001). Paperless records were significantly more likely to have at least one diagnosis recorded (48.2% v 33.2%, P=0.05), to record that advice had been given (23.7% vs 10.7%, P=0.017), and, when a referral had been made, were more likely to contain details of the specialty (77.4% v 59.5%, P=0.03). When a prescription had been issued, paperless records were more likely to specify the drug dose (86.6% v 66.2%, P=0.005). Paperless records contained significantly more words, abbreviations, and symbols (P < 0.01 for all). At doctor interview, there was no difference between the groups for the proportion of patients or consultations that could be recalled. Doctors using paperless records were able to recall more advice given to patients (38.6% v 26.8%, P=0.03). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence to support our hypotheses that paperless records would be truncated and contain more local abbreviations; and that the absence of writing would decrease subsequent recall. Conversely we found that the paperless records compared favourably with manual records.