An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: Consumer led co-creation.

PURPOSE: Children with chronic and complex health conditions frequently need intravenous devices. The current approach to intravenous device selection, insertion, and monitoring is inconsistent, and healthcare consumers are often negatively affected by siloed health information, and poor future planning. Despite child- and family-centred care being recognised as a pillar of paediatric nursing care, limited implementation for vascular access device planning and management is evident. DESIGN AND METHODS: To address this, we conducted a multi-phased approach to co-create, then evaluate, a mobile health (mHealth) application: IV Passport. Co-creation involved a prioritisation survey, followed by a Passport advisory panel consensus meeting. Following confirmation of the required content and features of the Passport, the mHealth application was designed and content validation achieved via survey. RESULTS: The prioritisation survey yielded recommendations for seven features (e.g., graphical presentations of current/past devices). Content for nine device types (e.g., totally implanted ports) was suggested, each with 10 related items (e.g., insertion site). Content items for device-associated complications, future vascular access plans, and educational resources were also suggested. Following design, the application was released through Apple and Android platforms; and adapted to a paper version. Content validation was established; 100% strongly agreed the application was easy to use; 80% agreed/strongly agreed that they would recommend the Passport to others. CONCLUSION: IV Passport embodies effective child- and family-centred care through consumer co-creation to empower patients and families manage vascular access devices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: IV Passport remains active; and can be utilised across many healthcare settings and patient populations.

An mHealth application for chronic vascular access: A multi-method evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare consumers require diverse resources to assist their navigation of complex healthcare interactions, however, these resources need to be fit for purpose. AIM: In this study, we evaluated the utility, usability and feasibility of children, families and adults requiring long-term intravenous therapy using a recently developed mobile health application (App), intravenous (IV) Passport. DESIGN: Multi-site, parallel, multi-method, prospective cohort study. METHODS: A multi-site, multi-method study was carried out in 2020-2021, with 46 participants (20 adults, 26 children/family) reporting on their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months. RESULTS: Overall, utility rates were acceptable, with 78.3% (N = 36) using the IV Passport over the follow-up period, with high rates of planned future use for those still active in the project (N = 21; 73%), especially in the child/family cohort (N = 13; 100%). Acceptability rates were high (9/10; IQR 6.5-10), with the IV Passport primarily used for documenting new devices and complications. Thematic analysis revealed three main themes (and multiple subthemes) in the qualitative data: Advocacy for healthcare needs, Complexity of healthcare and App design and functionality. CONCLUSION: Several recommendations were made to improve the end-user experience including 'how to' instructions; and scheduling functionality for routine care. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The IV Passport can be safely and appropriately integrated into healthcare, to support consumers. IMPACT: Patient-/parent-reported feedback suggests the Intravenous Passport is a useful tool for record-keeping, and positive communication between patients/parents, and clinicians. REPORTING METHOD: Not applicable. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Consumers reported their experiences surrounding the use of the IV Passport for up to 6 months.

Immunogenicity and safety of vaccination in children with paediatric rheumatic diseases: a scoping review.

Children with paediatric rheumatic diseases (PRDs) are at increased risk of vaccine-preventable disease. Safe and effective vaccination is central to preventive care in PRD patients; however, uncertainty surrounding immunogenicity and safety has contributed to suboptimal vaccination. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment effect on immunogenicity to vaccination in PRD patients and assess vaccine safety, specifically adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) and disease flare. Scoping review. In this scoping review, a systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases was conducted from 2014 to 23 August 2022 to identify observational studies evaluating the immunogenicity and safety of commonly used vaccinations in PRD patients. The primary outcome was immunogenicity (defined as seroprotection and protective antibody concentrations), with secondary outcomes describing AEFI and disease flare also extracted. Due to extensive heterogeneity related to diagnostic and vaccination variability, narrative synthesis was used to describe the findings of each study. Study quality was assessed via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022307212). The search yielded 19 studies evaluating immunogenicity to vaccination and incidence of AEFI and disease flares in this population, which were of acceptable quality. Corticosteroids did not have deleterious effects on vaccine response. Treatment with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic DMARDs generally had no effect immunogenicity in PRD patients. While patients exhibited adequate seroprotection, protective antibody levels were lower in patients on some immunosuppressant agents. Varicella infections were recorded post vaccination in several patients with low protective antibody levels undergoing treatment with DMARDs and corticosteroids. Most vaccines appear safe and effective in PRD patients, despite immunosuppressant treatment. Booster vaccinations should be considered with some studies highlighting inadequate seroprotection following primary course of vaccinations with acceleration of antibody decline over time. There was limited evidence to support avoiding live vaccines in PRD patients.

Extravasation injury management for neonates and children: A systematic review and aggregated case series.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric extravasation injuries are significant healthcare-associated injuries, with sometimes significant sequelae. Evidence-based guidance on management is necessary to prevent permanent injury. PURPOSE: A systematic review of the literature, including aggregated case series, investigating extravasation injury management of hospitalized pediatric patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cummulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) were searched on December 13, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Primary research investigating extravasation injury management of hospitalized pediatric patients (to 18 years), published from 2010 onwards and in English, independently screened by two authors, with arbitration from a third author. DATA EXTRACTION: Data regarding the study, patient (age, primary diagnosis), extravasation (site, presentation, outcome), and treatment (first aid, wound management) were extracted by two authors, with arbitration from a third author. DATA SYNTHESIS: From an initial 1769 articles, 27 studies were included with extractable case data reported in 18 studies, resulting in 33 cases. No clinical trials were identified, instead, studies were primarily case studies (52%) of neonates (67%), with varied extravasation symptoms. Studies had good selection and ascertainment, but few met the causality and reporting requirements for quality assessments. Signs and symptoms varied, with scarring (45%) and necrosis (30%) commonly described. Diverse treatments were categorized into first aid, medical, surgical, and dressings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite infiltration and extravasation injuries being common within pediatric healthcare, management interventions are under-researched, with low-quality studies and no consensus on treatments or outcomes.