Quantifying high dependency care: a prospective cohort study in Yorkshire (UK).

High dependency care (HDC) is a level of care situated between intensive care and usual ward care with its delivery being independent of location. Inadequate definition makes it problematic to determine the number of children receiving HDC, to identify their care setting and therefore to undertake service planning. We aimed to estimate the volume of hospital inpatient HDC in a geographically defined population using a customised measurement tool in four types of paediatric hospital services (1) tertiary specialist wards, (2) tertiary paediatric intensive care units, (3) district general hospitals (DGHs) general wards and (4) wards at a major acute general hospital. A region-wide prospective cohort study during 2005 collected data to develop a 36-item HDC measurement tool, which then identified children receiving HDC by day and night. The cohort identified 1,763 children as receiving HDC during an admission to 1 of 36 hospital wards in 14 hospitals. HDC was delivered during 9,077 shift periods of 12 h or 4,538 bed days. The volume of care and patient profiles varied by hospital type, within hospital by ward type and by age and season. Tertiary specialist wards and ICUs provided 72% of HDC, with the remainder delivered at the DGHs and the major acute general hospital. The volume of admissions to tertiary specialist wards showed little seasonality and children tended to be older (26% were aged 10-15 years). By comparison, admissions to DGHs were younger with an excess during the winter months. This is the first UK study to quantify HDC from empirical data encompassing all hospital and ward types within a large clinical network. A lack of HDC-designated beds across the region resulted in HDC delivery on all types of hospital wards. The study size and representativeness makes the estimated number of HDC bed days per head of population likely to reflect the wider UK population.

A feasibility study of signed consent for the collection of patient identifiable information for a national paediatric clinical audit database.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of obtaining signed consent for submission of patient identifiable data to a national clinical audit database and to identify factors influencing the consent process and its success. DESIGN: Feasibility study. SETTING: Seven paediatric intensive care units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Parents/guardians of patients, or patients aged 12-16 years old, approached consecutively over three months for signed consent for submission of patient identifiable data to the national clinical audit database the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANet). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The numbers and proportions of admissions for which signed consent was given, refused, or not obtained (form not returned or form partially completed but not signed), by age, sex, level of deprivation, ethnicity (South Asian or not), paediatric index of mortality score, length of hospital stay (days in paediatric intensive care). RESULTS: One unit did not start and one did not fully implement the protocol, so analysis excluded these two units. Consent was obtained for 182 of 422 admissions (43%) (range by unit 9% to 84%). Most (101/182; 55%) consents were taken by staff nurses. One refusal (0.2%) was received. Consent rates were significantly better for children who were more severely ill on admission and for hospital stays of six days or more, and significantly poorer for children aged 10-14 years. Long hospital stays and children aged 10-14 years remained significant in a stepwise regression model of the factors that were significant in the univariate model. CONCLUSION: Systematically obtaining individual signed consent for sharing patient identifiable information with an externally located clinical audit database is difficult. Obtaining such consent is unlikely to be successful unless additional resources are specifically allocated to training, staff time, and administrative support.