Assessment of current practice and barriers to antimicrobial prophylaxis in peritoneal dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Existing Australasian and international guidelines outline antibiotic and antifungal measures to prevent the development of treatment-related infection in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Practice patterns and rates of PD-related infection vary widely across renal units in Australia and New Zealand and are known to vary significantly from guideline recommendations, resulting in PD technique survival rates that are lower than those achieved in many other countries. The aim of this study was to determine if there is an association between current practice and PD-related infection outcomes and to identify the barriers and enablers to good clinical practice. METHODS: This is a multicentre network study involving eight PD units in Australia and New Zealand, with a focus on adherence to guideline recommendations on antimicrobial prophylaxis in PD patients. Current practice was established by asking the PD unit heads to respond to a short survey about practice/protocols/policies and a 'process map' was constructed following a face-to-face interview with the primary PD nurse at each unit. The perceived barriers/enablers to adherence to the relevant guideline recommendations were obtained from the completion of 'cause and effect' diagrams by the nephrologist and PD nurse at each unit. Data on PD-related infections were obtained for the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011. RESULTS: Perceived barriers that may result in reduced adherence to guideline recommendations included lack of knowledge, procedural lapses, lack of a centralized patient database, patients with non-English speaking background, professional concern about antibiotic resistance, medication cost and the inability of nephrologists and infectious diseases staff to reach consensus on unit protocols. The definitions of PD-related infections used by some units varied from those recommended by the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis, particularly with exit-site infection (ESI). Wide variations were observed in the rates of ESI (0.06-0.53 episodes per patient-year) and peritonitis (0.31-0.86 episodes per patient-year). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the existence of strongly evidence-based guideline recommendations, there was wide variation in adherence to these recommendations between PD units which might contribute to PD-related infection rates, which varied widely between units. Although individual patient characteristics may account for some of this variability, inconsistencies in the processes of care to prevent infection in PD patients also play a role.

A systematic review of infant feeding experience and hospitalisation in developed countries.

UNLABELLED: The review examines whether mode of feeding is associated with risk of hospitalisation for illness during infancy in developed countries. Databases were searched for published studies that included the terms 'infant feeding' and 'hospitalisation'. Six studies were included. Breastfeeding was associated with a reduced risk of hospitalisation and adjusted analyses showed mixed results. CONCLUSION: There is no clear relationship between mode of feeding and reduction of infant hospitalisation for illness in developed countries.

Opportunistic immunising in the paediatric emergency department: Are patients due vaccines?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify if patients presenting to a paediatric emergency department were due National Immunisation Program recommended vaccines in order to determine missed opportunities for vaccination or vaccination referral. METHOD: A hospital chart audit assessed the documentation of an immunisation history, in comparison to the immunisation histories available from national and state immunisation databases to determine accuracy; to identify if patients were due vaccines as determined by the National Immunisation Program; and to identify factors associated with those due vaccines. RESULTS: Potential opportunities to vaccinate children due vaccines were missed (10/114, 8.8%); with less than half (4/10, 40%) correctly documented as due vaccines. Despite identification of due vaccines, no vaccines were administered. Almost one third of patients (34/114, 30%) had no immunisation history documented in the chart. 'Medically at risk' children (Odds Ratio [OR] 29.7, 95% CI 4.5-196, p<0.001) were statistically more likely to be due vaccines. Likelihood of being due vaccines was higher, but not statistically significant, for those with no identified general practitioner (OR 4.5, 95% CI 0.96-20.6, p=0.08), and for those presenting with injury rather than illness (OR 2.0, 95%CI 0.51-8.1, p=0.48). CONCLUSION: Opportunities to vaccinate children presenting to the emergency department are currently being missed. A particular focus is needed for 'medically at risk' children and those with no identified general practitioner. Larger studies may confirm other risk factors. Further research is required into the attainment of an immunisation history during the hospital admission process and the accuracy of these methods.

Opportunistic immunisation in the emergency department: a survey of staff knowledge, opinion and practices.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify (a) emergency department staff knowledge, opinion and practices in relation to childhood vaccines and opportunistic immunisation in the emergency department and (b) differences between nursing and medical staff knowledge, opinion and self reported practices. METHODS: A self-administered, cross-sectional survey was offered to a convenience sample of medical and nursing staff (n=86) working in a tertiary paediatric emergency department. Variables of interest were described using frequencies and odds ratios to report differences between medical and nursing staff responses. RESULTS: An 87% survey response was achieved. The majority of staff agreed that childhood vaccines were safe (96%), effective (99%) and necessary (97%). Less than half (45%) of the staff correctly identified that there is no association between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. Medical staff were more likely than nurses to disagree that giving multiple vaccines overloads the immune system (p<0.01), or that complementary therapies reduced the need for a child to be vaccinated (p<0.006). These knowledge deficits exist despite a reported awareness of immunisation resources. The majority (96%) of those surveyed reported that the Australian Immunisation Handbook was as a useful resource. CONCLUSION: Overall, the majority of staff agreed vaccines are safe, effective and necessary. This study highlighted that staff knowledge deficits and misconceptions about vaccines and vaccine management may be barriers to promoting opportunistic immunisation practices in ED.