IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0228715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guideline adherence in the management of head injury in Australian children: A population-based sample survey

Author

Listed:
  • Janet C Long
  • Sarah Dalton
  • Gaston Arnolda
  • Hsuen P Ting
  • Charlotte J Molloy
  • Peter D Hibbert
  • Louise K Wiles
  • Simon Craig
  • Meagan Warwick
  • Kate Churruca
  • Louise A Ellis
  • Jeffrey Braithwaite
  • on behalf of the CareTrack Kids investigative team

Abstract

Background: Head injuries in children are a common and potentially devastating presentation. The CareTrack Kids (CTK) study assessed care of Australian children aged 0–15 years, in 2012 and 2013, to evaluate the proportion in line with guideline-based indicators for 17 common conditions. Overall adherence to guideline-based recommended practice occurred 59.8% of care encounters (95% CI: 57.5–62.0), and 78.3% (95% CI: 75.1–81.2) for head injury. This paper presents results for head injury, at indicator level. Methods: A modified version of the RAND-UCLA method of indicator development was used. Indicators, measurable components of a standard or guideline, were developed from international and national guidelines relating to head injury in children and were ratified by clinical experts using a Delphi process. Paediatric nurses extracted data from medical records from general practitioners (GPs), emergency departments (EDs) and inpatient wards in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia, for children under 15 years receiving care in 2012–13. Our purpose was to estimate the percentage adherent for each indicator. Results: The medical records of 629 children with head injury were examined. Fifty-one percent of children were under 5 years old, with more males (61%) than females. Thirty-eight indicators were assessed. Avoidance of nasotracheal airways (100%; 95% CI: 99.4–100) or nasogastric tubes (99.7%; 95% CI: 98.5–100) for children with a head injury had the highest adherence. Indicators relating to primary and secondary assessment of head injuries were mostly adhered to. However, adherence to other indicators was poor (e.g., documentation of the past history of children (e.g., presence or absence of seizures) before the injury; 29.9% (95% CI: 24.5–35.7)), and for others was difficult to estimate with confidence due to small sample sizes (e.g., Children with a head injury who were intubated had PaO2 above 80mm Hg; 56.0% (95% CI: 28.6–80.9)). Indicators guiding clinical decision making regarding the need for CT scan had insufficient data to justify reporting. Conclusion: This study highlights that management of head injury in children mostly follows guidelines, but also flags some specific areas of inconsistency. Individual sites are encouraged to use these results to guide investigation of local practices and inform quality improvement endeavours.

Suggested Citation

  • Janet C Long & Sarah Dalton & Gaston Arnolda & Hsuen P Ting & Charlotte J Molloy & Peter D Hibbert & Louise K Wiles & Simon Craig & Meagan Warwick & Kate Churruca & Louise A Ellis & Jeffrey Braithwait, 2020. "Guideline adherence in the management of head injury in Australian children: A population-based sample survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228715
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228715
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228715&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0228715?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228715. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.