Erratum to: Physical activities of Patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): preliminary longitudinal case-control study historical evaluation of possible risk factors.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13013-015-0029-8.].

Physical activities of Patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): preliminary longitudinal case-control study historical evaluation of possible risk factors.

To our knowledge there are no publications that have evaluated physical activities in relation to the etiopathogenesis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) other than sports scolioses. In a preliminary longitudinal case-control study, mother and child were questioned and the children examined by one observer. The aim of the study was to examine possible risk factors for AIS. Two study groups were assessed for physical activities: 79 children diagnosed as having progressive AIS at one spinal deformity centre (66 girls, 13 boys) and a Control Group of 77 school children (66 girls, 11 boys), the selection involving six criteria. A structured history of physical activities was obtained, every child allocated to a socioeconomic group and examined for toe touching. Unlike the Patients, the Controls were not X-rayed and were examined for surface vertical spinous process asymmetry (VSPA). Statistical analyses showed progressive AIS to be positively associated with social deprivation, early introduction to indoor heated swimming pools and ability to toe touch. AIS is negatively associated with participation in dance, skating, gymnastics or karate and football or hockey classes, which might suggest preventive possibilities. There is a significantly increased independent odds of AIS in children who went to an indoor heated swimming pool within the first year of life (odds ratio 3.88, 95% CI 1.77-8.48; p = 0·001). Furthermore fourteen (61%) Controls with VSPA compared with 9 (17%) Controls without VSPA had been introduced to the swimming pool within their first year of life (P < 0.001). Early exposure to indoor heated swimming pools for both AIS and VSPA, suggests that the AIS findings do not result from sample selection.

Prevalence and causes of prescribing errors: the PRescribing Outcomes for Trainee Doctors Engaged in Clinical Training (PROTECT) study.

OBJECTIVES: Study objectives were to investigate the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors amongst foundation doctors (i.e. junior doctors in their first (F1) or second (F2) year of post-graduate training), describe their knowledge and experience of prescribing errors, and explore their self-efficacy (i.e. confidence) in prescribing. METHOD: A three-part mixed-methods design was used, comprising: prospective observational study; semi-structured interviews and cross-sectional survey. All doctors prescribing in eight purposively selected hospitals in Scotland participated. All foundation doctors throughout Scotland participated in the survey. The number of prescribing errors per patient, doctor, ward and hospital, perceived causes of errors and a measure of doctors' self-efficacy were established. RESULTS: 4710 patient charts and 44,726 prescribed medicines were reviewed. There were 3364 errors, affecting 1700 (36.1%) charts (overall error rate: 7.5%; F1:7.4%; F2:8.6%; consultants:6.3%). Higher error rates were associated with : teaching hospitals (p<0.001), surgical (p = <0.001) or mixed wards (0.008) rather thanmedical ward, higher patient turnover wards (p<0.001), a greater number of prescribed medicines (p<0.001) and the months December and June (p<0.001). One hundred errors were discussed in 40 interviews. Error causation was multi-factorial; work environment and team factors were particularly noted. Of 548 completed questionnaires (national response rate of 35.4%), 508 (92.7% of respondents) reported errors, most of which (328 (64.6%) did not reach the patient. Pressure from other staff, workload and interruptions were cited as the main causes of errors. Foundation year 2 doctors reported greater confidence than year 1 doctors in deciding the most appropriate medication regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing errors are frequent and of complex causation. Foundation doctors made more errors than other doctors, but undertook the majority of prescribing, making them a key target for intervention. Contributing causes included work environment, team, task, individual and patient factors. Further work is needed to develop and assess interventions that address these.

Junior doctors' perceptions of their self-efficacy in prescribing, their prescribing errors and the possible causes of errors.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to explore and compare junior doctors' perceptions of their self-efficacy in prescribing, their prescribing errors and the possible causes of those errors. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was distributed to foundation doctors throughout Scotland, based on Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory and Human Error Theory (HET). RESULTS: Five hundred and forty-eight questionnaires were completed (35.0% of the national cohort). F1s estimated a higher daytime error rate [median 6.7 (IQR 2-12.4)] than F2s [4.0 IQR (0-10) (P = 0.002)], calculated based on the total number of medicines prescribed. The majority of self-reported errors (250, 49.2%) resulted from unintentional actions. Interruptions and pressure from other staff were commonly cited causes of errors. F1s were more likely to report insufficient prescribing skills as a potential cause of error than F2s (P = 0.002). The prescribers did not believe that the outcomes of their errors were serious. F2s reported higher self-efficacy scores than F1s in most aspects of prescribing (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Foundation doctors were aware of their prescribing errors, yet were confident in their prescribing skills and apparently complacent about the potential consequences of prescribing errors. Error causation is multi-factorial often due to environmental factors, but with lack of knowledge also contributing. Therefore interventions are needed at all levels, including environmental changes, improving knowledge, providing feedback and changing attitudes towards the role of prescribing as a major influence on patient outcome.

Perceived causes of prescribing errors by junior doctors in hospital inpatients: a study from the PROTECT programme.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing errors are a major cause of patient safety incidents. Understanding the underlying factors is essential in developing interventions to address this problem. This study aimed to investigate the perceived causes of prescribing errors among foundation (junior) doctors in Scotland. METHODS: In eight Scottish hospitals, data on prescribing errors were collected by ward pharmacists over a 14-month period. Foundation doctors responsible for making a prescribing error were interviewed about the perceived causes. Interview transcripts were analysed using content analysis and categorised into themes previously identified under Reason's Model of Accident Causation and Human Error. RESULTS: 40 prescribers were interviewed about 100 specific errors. Multiple perceived causes for all types of error were identified and were categorised into five categories of error-producing conditions, (environment, team, individual, task and patient factors). Work environment was identified as an important aspect by all doctors, especially workload and time pressures. Team factors included multiple individuals and teams involved with a patient, poor communication, poor medicines reconciliation and documentation and following incorrect instructions from other members of the team. A further team factor was the assumption that another member of the team would identify any errors made. The most frequently noted individual factors were lack of personal knowledge and experience. The main task factor identified was poor availability of drug information at admission and the most frequently stated patient factor was complexity. CONCLUSIONS: This study has emphasised the complex nature of prescribing errors, and the wide range of error-producing conditions within hospitals including the work environment, team, task, individual and patient. Further work is now needed to develop and assess interventions that address these possible causes in order to reduce prescribing error rates.

Reproductive outcomes following induced abortion: a national register-based cohort study in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate reproductive outcomes in women following induced abortion (IA). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Hospital admissions between 1981 and 2007 in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Data were extracted on all women who had an IA, a miscarriage or a live birth from the Scottish Morbidity Records. A total of 120 033, 457 477 and 47 355 women with a documented second pregnancy following an IA, live birth and miscarriage, respectively, were identified. OUTCOMES: Obstetric and perinatal outcomes, especially preterm delivery in a second ongoing pregnancy following an IA, were compared with those in primigravidae, as well as those who had a miscarriage or live birth in their first pregnancy. Outcomes after surgical and medical termination as well as after one or more consecutive IAs were compared. RESULTS: IA in a first pregnancy increased the risk of spontaneous preterm birth compared with that in primigravidae (adjusted RR (adj. RR) 1.37, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.42) or women with an initial live birth (adj. RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.58 to 1.74) but not in comparison with women with a previous miscarriage (adj. RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91). Surgical abortion increased the risk of spontaneous preterm birth compared with medical abortion (adj. RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45). The adjusted RRs (95% CI) for spontaneous preterm delivery following two, three and four consecutive IAs were 0.94 (0.81 to 1.10), 1.06 (0.76 to 1.47) and 0.92 (0.53 to 1.61), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of preterm birth after IA is lower than that after miscarriage but higher than that in a first pregnancy or after a previous live birth. This risk is not increased further in women who undergo two or more consecutive IAs. Surgical abortion appears to be associated with an increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth in comparison with medical termination of pregnancy. Medical termination was not associated with an increased risk of preterm delivery compared to primigravidae.

Seeing other women breastfeed: how vicarious experience relates to breastfeeding intention and behaviour.

Vicarious experience gained through seeing women breastfeed may influence infant feeding decisions and self-efficacy. Our aim was to measure the attributes of seeing breastfeeding and to investigate how these relate to feeding intention (primary outcome) and behaviour (secondary outcome). First, we developed a Seeing Breastfeeding Scale (SBS), which consisted of five attitudes (Cronbach's alpha of 0.86) to most recently observed breastfeeding: 'I felt embarrassed'; 'I felt uncomfortable'; 'I did not know where to look'; and 'It was lovely' and 'It didn't bother me'. Test-retest reliability showed agreement (with one exception, kappas ranged from 0.36 to 0.71). Second, we conducted a longitudinal survey of 418 consecutive pregnant women in rural Scotland. We selected the 259 women who had never breastfed before for further analysis. Following multiple adjustments, women who agreed that 'It was lovely to see her breastfeed' were more than six times more likely to intend to breastfeed compared with women who disagreed with the statement [odds ratio (OR) 6.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.85-15.82]. Women who completed their full-time education aged 17 (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.41-6.77) or aged 19 (OR 7.41 95% CI 2.51-21.94) were more likely to initiate breastfeeding. Women who reported seeing breastfeeding within the preceding 12 months were significantly more likely to agree with the statement 'It was lovely to see her breastfeed' (P = 0.02). Positive attitudes to recently seen breastfeeding are more important determinants of feeding intention than age of first seeing breastfeeding, the relationship to the person seen and seeing breastfeeding in the media.

A pilot study to evaluate a community pharmacy-based monitoring system to identify adverse drug reactions associated with paediatric medicines use.

INTRODUCTION: Current pharmacovigilance systems are limited by spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), lack of a denominator, and lower than expected reporting rates. The aim of our study was to undertake a formal pilot evaluation of a community pharmacy-led ADR monitoring system. METHODS: The setting was community pharmacies in five Health Boards areas of Scotland. Subjects were parents, guardians, or children presenting prescriptions for children 16 years and under prescribed serotonin specific reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), anticonvulsants, or medicines for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). All pharmacies (n = 827) were invited to participate. Over a 3-month period they were asked to identify prescriptions for targeted medicines and give out an ADR questionnaire. Questionnaire content included child demography, duration of medicine use, indication, perceived ADRs, and their description and severity. The study was approved by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. RESULTS: Seventy-two community pharmacists (8.7%) agreed to take part. Two hundred and twenty-nine questionnaires were distributed and 55 (24%) completed and returned by parents. Forty-one questionnaires related to ADHD medications, 13 to anticonvulsants, and 1 to an SSRI. Thirty questionnaires reported 44 possible ADRs, 19 of which were related to methylphenidate. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed ADR monitoring system identified expected ADRs thus demonstrating face and content validity for our approach. However the process was limited by low community pharmacist participation rates and low questionnaire return rates.

Views of parents and pharmacists following participation in a paediatric pharmacovigilance study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences and views of community pharmacists and parents participating in a prospective paediatric pharmacovigilance study. METHOD: Twenty-five pharmacists and 32 parents were approached for telephone interview. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to identify recurring issues and themes. RESULTS: Seventeen pharmacists and 22 parents were interviewed. Parents and pharmacists agreed that more information about the side effects of medicines in children was required. Both groups reported willingness to participate in future prospective pharmacovigilance studies, although pharmacists expressed concerns about the lack of financial incentives. Pharmacists reported that parents had concerns regarding the confidentiality of their child's ADR data and the study data collection process. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted positive and negative opinions of parents and pharmacists regarding their experiences in this research project. Maintaining confidentiality in relation to indication and medicines prescribed were important issues for parents whereas time constraints and lack of financial incentives were key issues influencing participation by community pharmacists.