A Risk Assessment and Planning Tool to Prevent Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy: Development and Evaluation of The Baby Sleep Planner.

BACKGROUND: Successful national safer sleep campaigns in the United Kingdom have lowered the death rates from sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) over the past 3 decades, but deaths persist in socioeconomically deprived families. The circumstances of current deaths suggest that improvements in support for some families to follow safer sleep advice more consistently could save lives. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a risk assessment and planning tool designed to improve the uptake of safer sleep advice in families with infants at increased risk of SUDI. METHODS: A co-design approach was used to develop the prototype interface of a web-based tool with 2 parts: an individual SUDI risk assessment at birth and a downloadable plan for safety during times of disruption. The advice contained within the tool is concordant with national guidance from the Lullaby Trust, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. User testing of the prototype tool was conducted by inviting health visitors, midwives, and family nurses to use it with families eligible for additional support. Qualitative interviews with health professionals and families allowed for iterative changes to the tool and for insights into its function and influence on parental behavior. RESULTS: A total of 22 health professionals were enrolled in the study, of whom 20 (91%) were interviewed. They reported appreciating the functionality of the tool, which allowed them to identify at-risk families for further support. They felt that the tool improved how they communicated about risks with families. They suggested expanding its use to include relevance in the antenatal period and having versions available in languages other than English. They reported using the tool with 58 families; 20 parents gave consent to be interviewed by the research team about their experiences with the tool. Families were positive about the tool, appreciated the trustworthy information, and felt that it was useful and appropriate and that the plans for specific infant sleeps would be of benefit to them and other family members. CONCLUSIONS: Our tool combines risk assessment and safety planning, both of which have the potential to improve the uptake of lifesaving advice. Refinements to the tool based on these findings have ensured that the tool is ready for further evaluation in a larger study before being rolled out to families with infants at increased risk.

Death from Failed Protection? An Evolutionary-Developmental Theory of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has been mainly described from a risk perspective, with a focus on endogenous, exogenous, and temporal risk factors that can interact to facilitate lethal outcomes. Here we discuss the limitations that this risk-based paradigm may have, using two of the major risk factors for SIDS, prone sleep position and bed-sharing, as examples. Based on a multipronged theoretical model encompassing evolutionary theory, developmental biology, and cultural mismatch theory, we conceptualize the vulnerability to SIDS as an imbalance between current physiologic-regulatory demands and current protective abilities on the part of the infant. From this understanding, SIDS appears as a developmental condition in which competencies relevant to self-protection fail to develop appropriately in the future victims. Since all of the protective resources in question are bound to emerge during normal infant development, we contend that SIDS may reflect an evolutionary mismatch situation-a constellation in which certain modern developmental influences may overextend the child's adaptive (evolutionary) repertoire. We thus argue that SIDS may be better understood if the focus on risk factors is complemented by a deeper appreciation of the protective resources that human infants acquire during their normal development. We extensively analyze this evolutionary-developmental theory against the body of epidemiological and experimental evidence in SIDS research and thereby also address the as-of-yet unresolved question of why breastfeeding may be protective against SIDS.

Implementation of the CHIldren with acute COugh (CHICO) intervention to improve antibiotics management: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Childhood respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are common and can lead to unnecessary antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance. The CHIldren with COugh (CHICO) intervention incorporates a clinician-focused algorithm (STARWAVe) to predict future hospitalisation risk, elicitation of carer concerns, and a carer-focused personalised leaflet recording treatment decisions and safety-netting information. AIM: To examine the implementation of the CHICO intervention by primary care clinicians. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study with primary care clinicians in England taking part in the CHICO randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Interviews explored the CHICO intervention's acceptability and use. Clinicians from a range of practices with high and low antibiotic dispensing rates were recruited. Normalisation process theory underpinned data collection and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most clinicians liked the intervention because it was quick and easy to use, it helped elicit carer concerns, and reassured clinicians and carers of the appropriateness of treatment decisions. However, clinicians used it as a supportive aid for treatment decisions rather than as a tool for behaviour change. The accompanying advice leaflet helped explain treatment decisions and support self-care. The intervention did not always align with clinicians' usual processes, which could affect use. Increased familiarisation with the algorithm led to reduced intervention use, which was further reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of changes to practice and remote consultations. CONCLUSION: Clinicians found the CHICO intervention useful to support decision making around antibiotic prescribing and it helped discussions with carers about concerns and treatment decisions. The intervention may need to be adapted to align more with clinicians' consultation flow and remote consultations.

Collaborative discussions between pharmacists and general practitioners to optimise patient medication: a qualitative study within a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been significant investment in pharmacists working in UK general practice to improve the effective and safe use of medicines. However, evidence of how to optimise collaboration between GPs and pharmacists in the context of polypharmacy (multiple medication) is lacking. AIM: To explore GP and pharmacist views and experiences of in-person, inter-professional collaborative discussions (IPCDs) as part of a complex intervention to optimise medication use for patients with polypharmacy in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-method process evaluation embedded within the Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP) trial conducted in Bristol and the West Midlands. METHOD: Audio-recordings of IPCDs between GPs and pharmacists, and individual semi-structured interviews exploring their reflections on these discussions. All recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Fourteen practices took part in the process evaluation (Feb 2021- Sept 2023). Seventeen IPCD meetings were audio recorded discussing 30 patients (range of 1-6 patients per meeting). Six GPs and 13 pharmacists were interviewed. The IPCD was highly valued by GPs and pharmacists who described benefits including: strengthening their working relationship; learning from each other; and gaining in confidence to manage more complex patients. It was often challenging, however, to find time for the IPCDs. CONCLUSION: The model of IPCD studied provided protected time for GPs and pharmacists to work together to deliver whole-patient care, with both professions finding this beneficial. Protected time for inter-professional liaison and collaboration, and structured interventions may facilitate improved patient care.

Improving the care of children with GENetic Rare disease: Observational Cohort study (GenROC)-a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Around 2000 children are born in the UK per year with a neurodevelopmental genetic syndrome with significantly increased morbidity and mortality. Often little is known about expected growth and phenotypes in these children. Parents have responded by setting up social media groups to generate data themselves. Given the significant clinical evidence gaps, this research will attempt to identify growth patterns, developmental profiles and phenotypes, providing data on long-term medical and educational outcomes. This will guide clinicians when to investigate, monitor or treat symptoms and when to search for additional or alternative diagnoses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an observational, multicentre cohort study recruiting between March 2023 and February 2026. Children aged 6 months up to 16 years with a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a specified gene will be eligible. Children will be identified through the National Health Service and via self-recruitment. Parents or carers will complete a questionnaire at baseline and again 1 year after recruitment. The named clinician (in most cases a clinical geneticist) will complete a clinical proforma which will provide data from their most recent clinical assessment. Qualitative interviews will be undertaken with a subset of parents partway through the study. Growth and developmental milestone curves will be generated through the DECIPHER website (https://deciphergenomics.org) where 5 or more children have the same genetic syndrome (at least 10 groups expected). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be presented at national and international conferences concerning the care of children with genetic syndromes. Results will also be submitted for peer review and publication.

A multifaceted intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing among CHIldren with acute COugh and respiratory tract infection: the CHICO cluster RCT.

Background: Clinical uncertainty in primary care regarding the prognosis of children with respiratory tract infections contributes to the unnecessary use of antibiotics. Improved identification of children at low risk of future hospitalisation might reduce clinical uncertainty. A National Institute for Health and Care Research-funded 5-year programme (RP-PG-0608-10018) was used to develop and feasibility test an intervention. Objectives: The aim of the children with acute cough randomised controlled trial was to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and respiratory tract infection without increasing hospital admission. Design: An efficient, pragmatic open-label, two-arm trial (with embedded qualitative and health economic analyses) using practice-level randomisation using routinely collected data as the primary outcome. Setting: General practitioner practices in England. Participants: General practitioner practices using the Egton Medical Information Systems® patient-record system for children aged 0-9 years presenting with a cough or upper respiratory tract infection. Recruited by Clinical Research Networks and Clinical Commissioning Groups. Intervention: Comprised: (1) elicitation of parental concerns during consultation; (2) a clinician-focused prognostic algorithm to identify children with acute cough and respiratory tract infection at low, average or elevated risk of hospitalisation in the next 30 days accompanied by prescribing guidance, (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice. Main outcome measures: Co-primaries using the practice list-size for children aged 0-9 years as the denominator: rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide items at each practice (superiority comparison) from NHS Business Services Authority ePACT2 and rate of hospital admission for respiratory tract infection (non-inferiority comparison) from Clinical Commissioning Groups, both routinely collected over 12 months. Results: Of the 310 practices required, 294 (95%) were recruited (144 intervention and 150 controls) with 336,496 registered 0-9-year-olds (5% of all 0-9-year-old children in England) from 47 Clinical Commissioning Groups. Included practices were slightly larger than those not included, had slightly lower baseline dispensing rates and were located in more deprived areas (reflecting the distribution for practice postcodes nationally). Twelve practices (4%) subsequently withdrew (six related to the pandemic). The median number of times the intervention was used was 70 per practice (by a median of 9 clinicians) over 12 months. There was no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices [0.155 (95% confidence interval 0.135 to 0.179)] differed to controls [0.154 (95% confidence interval 0.130 to 0.182), relative risk= 1.011 (95% confidence interval 0.992 to 1.029); p = 0.253]. There was, overall, a reduction in dispensing levels and intervention usage during the pandemic. The rate of hospitalisation for respiratory tract infection in the intervention practices [0.019 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.026)] compared to the controls [0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.029)] was non-inferior [relative risk = 0.952 (95% confidence interval 0.905 to 1.003)]. The qualitative evaluation found the clinicians liked the intervention, used it as a supportive aid, especially with borderline cases but that it, did not always integrate well within the consultation flow and was used less over time. The economic evaluation found no evidence of a difference in mean National Health Service costs between arms; mean difference -£1999 (95% confidence interval -£6627 to 2630). Conclusions: The intervention was feasible and subjectively useful to practitioners, with no evidence of harm in terms of hospitalisations, but did not impact on antibiotic prescribing rates. Future work and limitations: Although the intervention does not appear to change prescribing behaviour, elements of the approach may be used in the design of future interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11405239 (date assigned 20 April 2018) at www.controlled-trials.com (accessed 5 September 2022). Version 4.0 of the protocol is available at: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/ (accessed 5 September 2022). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (NIHR award ref: 16/31/98) programme and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Coughs and colds (also known as respiratory tract infections) are the most common reason that children are taken to family doctors and nurses in primary care. These clinicians are not always sure how best to treat them and often use antibiotics 'just in case'. There are now concerns that clinicians are using antibiotics too often, and that this is increasing the number of resistant bugs (bacteria that cannot be killed by antibiotics). We wanted to see if using a scoring system of symptoms and signs of illness to help clinicians identify children very unlikely to need hospital care as well as listening to parents' concerns and giving them a personalised leaflet with care and safety advice, reduced antibiotic use. We recruited practices rather than patients, so did not need individual patient consent. The two main outcomes were the rate of antibiotics dispensed for children and number of children admitted to hospital for respiratory tract infections, using routinely collected data for 0­9-year-olds. We recruited 294 general practitioner practices, which was 95% of the total needed; 144 were asked to use the intervention and 150 to continue providing usual care (controls); only 12 practices subsequently withdrew (6 related to the pandemic). The average number of times the intervention was used was 70 per practice (by an average of 9 clinicians) over 12 months. There was no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices differed from control practices. Further analyses showed an overall reduction in dispensing levels and intervention usage during the pandemic. The rate of hospitalisation for respiratory tract infection in the intervention practices was similar to the control practices. In the interviews, we found that clinicians liked the intervention and used it as a supportive aid during consultations, especially for borderline cases, rather than a tool to change prescribing behaviour.