Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an adapted intervention for preschoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities displaying behaviours that challenge: the EPICC-ID RCT.

Background: Stepping Stones Triple P is an adapted intervention for parents of young children with developmental disabilities who display behaviours that challenge, aiming at teaching positive parenting techniques and promoting a positive parent-child relationship. Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P in reducing behaviours that challenge in children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Design, setting, participants: A parallel two-arm pragmatic multisite single-blind randomised controlled trial recruited a total of 261 dyads (parent and child). The children were aged 30-59 months and had moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Participants were randomised, using a 3 : 2 allocation ratio, into the intervention arm (Stepping Stones Triple P; n = 155) or treatment as usual arm (n = 106). Participants were recruited from four study sites in Blackpool, North and South London and Newcastle. Intervention: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P consists of six group sessions and three individual phone or face-to-face contacts over 9 weeks. These were changed to remote sessions after 16 March 2020 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome measure was the parent-reported Child Behaviour Checklist, which assesses the severity of behaviours that challenge. Results: We found a small non-significant difference in the mean Child Behaviour Checklist scores (-4.23, 95% CI -9.98 to 1.52, p = 0.146) in the intervention arm compared to treatment as usual at 12 months. Per protocol and complier average causal effect sensitivity analyses, which took into consideration the number of sessions attended, showed the Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference at 12 months was lower in the intervention arm by -10.77 (95% CI -19.12 to -2.42, p = 0.014) and -11.53 (95% CI -26.97 to 3.91, p = 0.143), respectively. The Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference between participants who were recruited before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was estimated as -7.12 (95% CI -13.44 to -0.81) and 7.61 (95% CI -5.43 to 20.64), respectively (p = 0.046), suggesting that any effect pre-pandemic may have reversed during the pandemic. There were no differences in all secondary measures. Stepping Stones Triple P is probably value for money to deliver (-£1057.88; 95% CI -£3218.6 to -£46.67), but decisions to roll this out as an alternative to existing parenting interventions or treatment as usual may be dependent on policymaker willingness to invest in early interventions to reduce behaviours that challenge. Parents reported the intervention boosted their confidence and skills, and the group format enabled them to learn from others and benefit from peer support. There were 20 serious adverse events reported during the study, but none were associated with the intervention. Limitations: There were low attendance rates in the Stepping Stones Triple P arm, as well as the coronavirus disease 2019-related challenges with recruitment and delivery of the intervention. Conclusions: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P did not reduce early onset behaviours that challenge in very young children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. However, there was an effect on child behaviours for those who received a sufficient dose of the intervention. There is a high probability of Stepping Stones Triple P being at least cost neutral and therefore worth considering as an early therapeutic option given the long-term consequences of behaviours that challenge on people and their social networks. Future work: Further research should investigate the implementation of parenting groups for behaviours that challenge in this population, as well as the optimal mode of delivery to maximise engagement and subsequent outcomes. Study registration: This study is registered as NCT03086876 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876?term=Hassiotis±Angela&draw=1&rank=1). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: HTA 15/162/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Research shows that in children without learning disabilities, parenting groups which support parents to develop skills to manage behaviours that challenge in their child can be helpful. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommended that more research was needed to strengthen the evidence for such interventions for children with moderate to severe learning disability who are more likely to display behaviours that challenge in England. In this study, we tested in real-world conditions a programme called level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P, which has shown positive results in trials outside of the United Kingdom. Trained therapists delivered six groups and three individual sessions over 9 weeks to parents of children aged 30­59 months with moderate to severe learning disabilities. Two hundred and sixty-one parents were allocated to one of two arms by chance (randomisation): one received Stepping Stones Triple P and treatment as usual and the other treatment as usual only. Treatment as usual included support and advice by general practitioners or community child development teams. Our primary outcome was parent-reported child behaviour at 12 months after randomisation. We also collected data on other outcomes and carried out interviews with parents, service managers and therapists to find out their views about Stepping Stones Triple P. We did not find that Stepping Stones Triple P reduces behaviours that challenge in the child more than treatment as usual at 12 months. However, when we looked at people who received more than half of the sessions, there was a larger reduction in behaviours which suggests that Stepping Stones Triple P works for families if they attend the full programme. Stepping Stones Triple P seems to be good value for money, as we found that at 12 months (covering 10 months of costs), the Stepping Stones Triple P cost £1058 less than treatment as usual from a health and social care perspective. As such, Stepping Stones Triple P is fairly cheap to deliver and a suitable early intervention for behaviours that challenge especially because of positive feedback from parents. Throughout the trial, we included a Parent Advisory Group that oversaw study materials, interview topic guides and promotion of the study.

Pain assessment tools in paediatric palliative care: A systematic review of psychometric properties and recommendations for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Assessing pain in infants, children and young people with life-limiting conditions remains a challenge due to diverse patient conditions, types of pain and often a reduced ability or inability of patients to communicate verbally. AIM: To systematically identify pain assessment tools that are currently used in paediatric palliative care and examine their psychometric properties and feasibility and make recommendations for clinical practice. DESIGN: A systematic literature review and evaluation of psychometric properties of pain assessment tools of original peer-reviewed research published from inception of data sources to April 2021. DATA SOURCES: PsycINFO via ProQuest, Web of Science Core, Medline via Ovid, EMBASE, BIOSIS and CINAHL were searched from inception to April 2021. Hand searches of reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were performed. RESULTS: From 1168 articles identified, 201 papers were selected for full-text assessment. Thirty-four articles met the eligibility criteria and we examined the psychometric properties of 22 pain assessment tools. Overall, the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) had high cross-cultural validity, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and responsiveness; while the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale and Paediatric Pain Profile (PPP) had high internal consistency, criterion validity, reliability and responsiveness. The number of studies per psychometric property of each pain assessment tool was limited and the methodological quality of included studies was low. CONCLUSION: Balancing aspects of feasibility and psychometric properties, the FPS-R is recommended for self-assessment, and the FLACC scale/FLACC Revised and PPP are the recommended observational tools in their respective age groups.

Healthcare professionals' views of the use of oral morphine and transmucosal diamorphine in the management of paediatric breakthrough pain and the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial: A focus group study (DIPPER).

BACKGROUND: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain but the oral route is not always available and absorption is slow. Transmucosal diamorphine is administered by buccal, sublingual or intranasal routes, and rapidly absorbed. AIM: To explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals in the UK caring for children with life-limiting conditions concerning the assessment and management of breakthrough pain; prescribing and administration of transmucosal diamorphine compared with oral morphine; and the feasibility of a comparative clinical trial. DESIGN/ PARTICIPANTS: Three focus groups, analysed using a Framework approach. Doctors, nurses and pharmacists (n = 28), caring for children with life-limiting illnesses receiving palliative care, participated. RESULTS: Oral morphine is frequently used for breakthrough pain across all settings; with transmucosal diamorphine largely limited to use in hospices or given by community nurses, predominantly buccally. Perceived advantages of oral morphine included confidence in its use with no requirement for specific training; disadvantages included tolerability issues, slow onset, unpredictable response and unsuitability for patients with gastrointestinal failure. Perceived advantages of transmucosal diamorphine were quick onset and easy administration; barriers included lack of licensed preparations and prescribing guidance with fears over accountability of prescribers, and potential issues with availability, preparation and palatability. Factors potentially affecting recruitment to a trial were patient suitability and onerousness for families, trial design and logistics, staff time and clinician engagement. CONCLUSIONS: There were perceived advantages to transmucosal diamorphine, but there is a need for access to a safe preparation. A clinical trial would be feasible provided barriers were overcome.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of a parent mediated intervention to reduce challenging behaviour in pre-schoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disability (EPICC-ID) study protocol: a multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Children with intellectual disabilities are likely to present with challenging behaviour. Parent mediated interventions have shown utility in influencing child behaviour, although there is a paucity of UK research into challenging behaviour interventions in this population. NICE guidelines favour Stepping Stones Triple P (SSTP) as a challenging behaviour intervention and this trial aims to evaluate its clinical and cost effectiveness in preschool children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. METHODS: This trial launched in 2017 at four sites across England, with the aim of recruiting 258 participants (aged 30-59 months). The Intervention Group receive nine weeks of SSTP parenting therapy (six group sessions and three individualised face to face or telephone sessions) in addition to Treatment as Usual, whilst the Treatment as Usual only group receive other available services in each location. Both study groups undergo the study measurements at baseline and at four and twelve months. Outcome measures include parent reports and structured observations of behaviour. Service use and health related quality of life data will also be collected to carry out a cost effectiveness and utility evaluation. DISCUSSION: Findings from this study will inform policy regarding interventions for challenging behaviour in young children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03086876. Registered 22nd March 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876.

Mapping staff perspectives towards the delivery of hospital care for children and young people with and without learning disabilities in England: a mixed methods national study.

BACKGROUND: Children and young people (CYP) with learning disabilities (LD) are a vulnerable population with increased risk of abuse and accidental injury and whose parents have reported concerns about the quality, safety and accessibility of their hospital care. The Care Quality Commission's (CQC) view of best practice for this group of patients includes: access to senior LD nurse provision; a clearly visible flagging system for identifying them; the use of hospital passports; and defined communication strategies (Glasper, Comp Child Adolesc Nurs 40:63-67, 2017). What remains unclear is whether these recommendations are being applied and if so, what difference they are making. Furthermore, what we do not know is whether parental concerns of CYP with LD differ from parents of other children with long-term conditions. The aims of this study were to 1) describe the organisational context for healthcare delivery to CYP with LD and their families and 2) compare staff perceptions of their ability to identify the needs of CYP with and without LD and their families and provide high quality care to effectively meet these needs. METHODS: Individual interviews (n = 65) and anonymised online survey (n = 2261) were conducted with hospital staff working with CYP in 15 children's and 9 non-children's hospitals in England. The majority of interviews were conducted over the telephone and recorded and transcribed verbatim. Health Research Authority was obtained and verbal or written consent for data collection was obtained from all interview participants. RESULTS: The nature and extent of organisational policies, systems and practices in place within hospitals to support the care of CYP with LD differs across England and some uncertainty exists within and across hospitals as to what is currently available and accessed. Staff perceived that those with LD were included less, valued less, and less safe than CYP without LD. They also reported having less confidence, capability and capacity to meet the needs of this population compared to those without LD. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate inequality with regards the provision of high quality hospital care to children and young people with LD that meets their needs. There is a pressing need to understand the impact this has on them and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered on the NIHR CRN portfolio 20461 (Phase 1), 31336 (Phases 2-4).

Healthcare professional and interpreter perspectives on working with and caring for non-English speaking families in a tertiary paediatric healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of healthcare professionals and interpreters in relation to working with and caring for non-English speaking families accessing National Health Service paediatric tertiary health care services. DESIGN: Focus group and interview methods were used to elicit the views of healthcare professionals and interpreters at one tertiary paediatric hospital in the United Kingdom. Data were subjected to framework analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified a number of factors affecting communication and their interaction with non-English speaking families in this setting, including time, role uncertainty, and interlinked dimensions of culture and gender. They also described how the nature of this communication could impact on both the delivery of care and the patient and family experience. These findings highlight gaps in services, training, and support for families, staff and interpreters. These need to be recognised and addressed by those in practice to improve care delivery and help tackle health inequalities. CONCLUSION: Our data show how significant the impact of language barriers can be, and the need to consider not only how communication can be improved, but also how this is situated in the specific context of tertiary paediatric care as well as a wider social context of inequity.

Pay More Attention: a national mixed methods study to identify the barriers and facilitators to ensuring equal access to high-quality hospital care and services for children and young people with and without learning disabilities and their families.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence of health inequalities for adults with intellectual disability (ID) there has yet to be a comprehensive review of how well hospital services are meeting the needs of children and young people (CYP) with ID and their families. We do not know how relevant existing recommendations and guidelines are to CYP, whether these are being applied in the paediatric setting or what difference they are making. Evidence of parental dissatisfaction with the quality, safety and accessibility of hospital care for CYP with ID exists. However, the extent to which their experience differs from parents of CYP without ID is not known and the views and experiences of CYP with ID have not been investigated. We will compare how services are delivered to, and experienced by CYP aged 5-15 years with and without ID and their families to see what inequalities exist, for whom, why and under what circumstances. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a transformative, mixed methods case study design to collect data over four consecutive phases. We will involve CYP, parents and hospital staff using a range of methods; interviews, parental electronic diary, hospital and community staff questionnaire, patient and parent satisfaction questionnaire, content analysis of hospital documents and a retrospective mapping of patient hospital activity. Qualitative data will be managed and analysed using NVivo and quantitative data will be analysed using parametric and non-parametric descriptive statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will run from December 2015 to November 2018. We have Health Authority Approval (IRAS project ID: 193932) for phase 1 involving staff only and ethical and Health Authority Approval for phases 2-4 (IRAS project ID: 178525). We will disseminate widely to relevant stakeholders, using a range of accessible formats, including social media. We will publish in international peer-reviewed journals and present to professional, academic and lay audiences through national and international conferences.

Making pain assessment more accessible to children and parents: can greater involvement improve the quality of care?

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nursing and parental pain assessment documentation and analgesia administration increased with the use of a temporary tattoo of a pain intensity scale (TTPS) compared with a paper version of the pain scale (PPS). To document any adverse skin reactions from the use of the TTPS and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the PPS and TTPS for use as postoperative pain assessment tools in the home and clinical setting. METHODS: Two pilot randomized controlled trials were conducted to test the TTPS intervention and the PPS control condition in children aged 6 to 12 years, after surgery. Trial 1 involved children admitted to hospital for planned inpatient surgery (n=86). Trial 2 involved children discharged home following day case surgery (n=25). RESULTS: The TTPS was well accepted and there were no adverse effects. Our hypothesis that the TTPS would increase documentation of pain assessment or analgesic administration was not supported. However, a number of confounding factors may explain the findings. Children in both trials indicated greater overall satisfaction with the TTPS and responses from both parents and children suggested some aspects of the quality of the pain management experience were enhanced with use of the TTPS in both trials. DISCUSSION: The TTPS is a new method to engage children in pain assessment, which may have positive effects on the quality of postoperative pain assessment and management in hospital and home settings. Larger trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of the TTPS across all pediatric settings and for children with nonsurgical and also surgical pain. The findings from these pilot trials provide useful information for design and power estimation for further research in inpatient and home settings.