Undergraduate interprofessional education using high-fidelity paediatric simulation.

BACKGROUND: High-fidelity simulation is becoming increasingly important in the delivery of teaching and learning to health care professionals within a safe environment. Its use in an interprofessional context and at undergraduate level has the potential to facilitate the learning of good communication and teamworking, in addition to clinical knowledge and skills. METHODS: Interprofessional teaching and learning workshops using high-fidelity paediatric simulation were developed and delivered to undergraduate medical and nursing students at Queen's University Belfast. Learning outcomes common to both professions, and essential in the clinical management of sick children, included basic competencies, communication and teamworking skills. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation was undertaken using published questionnaires. RESULTS: Quantitative results - the 32-item questionnaire was analysed for reliability using spss. Responses were positive for both groups of students across four domains - acquisition of knowledge and skills, communication and teamworking, professional identity and role awareness, and attitudes to shared learning. Qualitative results - thematic content analysis was used to analyse open-ended responses. Students from both groups commented that an interprofessional education (IPE) approach to paediatric simulation improved clinical and practice-based skills, and provided a safe learning environment. Students commented that there should be more interprofessional and simulation learning opportunities. DISCUSSION: High-fidelity paediatric simulation, used in an interprofessional context, has the potential to meet the requirements of undergraduate medical and nursing curricula. Further research is needed into the long-term benefits for patient care, and its generalisability to other areas within health care teaching and learning.

Influenza vaccinations in Northern Ireland: are older patients missing out?

BACKGROUND: Influenza is a common respiratory disease that may affect a large proportion of the population annually. Vaccination is recommended for those most at risk of complications; namely everyone aged 65 and over and those under 65 who are immunosuppressed or who have chronic disease. OBJECTIVE: To explore the variations in influenza vaccination rates for the winter of 2000, with special reference to uptake amongst older patients. DESIGN: An audit of vaccination rates amongst 12 practices that participate in the Northern Ireland Data Retrieval in Primary Care Project. METHODS: Data were extracted from the practice computers; Read codes were used to determine if the patient was immunosuppressed or suffered from chronic heart, lung or renal disease or had diabetes mellitus. The postcode of residence was used as a proxy for residence in a nursing or residential home as this could not be determined directly from the data. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine which factors were significantly related to vaccination uptake. RESULTS: We vaccinated 10,427 patients in these practices against influenza with a vaccination rate of 65.2% for the over-65 population. Uptake rates peaked at age 85 and declined thereafter so that only half of those aged over 90 had been vaccinated. This age related decline in vaccination rates was evident in ten of the twelve practices. The presence of chronic disease increased the likelihood of vaccination even amongst older patients. Logistic regression confirmed the decline in uptake rates at older ages and suggested that patients who shared the address of a nursing or residential home were less likely to have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: We feel that the current monitoring of influenza vaccination rates needs to be extended so that uptake amongst those most at risk, namely the very oldest and those in nursing and residential homes, can be adequately assessed.

The importance of validating the diagnosis of coronary heart disease when measuring secondary prevention: a cross-sectional study in general practice.

PURPOSE: To compare levels of recorded risk factors and drug treatment between patients with validated and non-validated diagnoses of coronary heart disease (CHD) in Northern Ireland. METHODS: Patients with a nitrate prescription in the previous year or a CHD Read code were identified from computer records of 25 practices, stratified by partnership size and area board. Computer and paper records of a random sample of 10% of these were searched for specified criteria to validate the diagnosis of CHD. The diagnosis was considered valid if the patient was found to have one or more positive investigations for CHD. Records of blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, body mass index and drugs prescribed were taken into account. RESULTS: The combined practice population was 151,071; 7338 (4.86%) were identified by the computer search as meeting the defined entry criteria for CHD. Among the 10% random sample the diagnosis of CHD could not be validated for 36.5% (265/727). Significantly more patients with a validated than non-validated diagnosis had recorded cholesterol levels below 5.0 mmol/l (55.8 vs. 34.5%, p < 0.001) and were prescribed aspirin (75.3 vs. 40.8%, p < 0.001), beta-blockers (51.5 vs. 28.3%, p < 0.001), angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (29.2 vs. 15.5%, p < 0.001) and lipid-lowering drugs (50.9 vs. 23.0%, p < 0.001). A recent nitrate prescription had a higher predictive value for validated CHD than a Read code for CHD alone (71.2 vs. 53.1%, p < 0.001). No other significant differences were found between the two groups regarding the extent or levels of recorded risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a validated diagnosis of CHD appear to be better managed than those whose diagnosis has not been confirmed. Validation of diagnosis has important implications for assessing the provision of secondary prevention and for clinical governance.