BackgroundComplementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM.ObjectiveTo assess healthcare professionals’ sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital.Design and participantsThe cross-sectional web-based survey took place from October to December 2013. A total of 4,925 healthcare professionals working at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, were invited to answer the questionnaire.Main measuresFactors influencing healthcare professionals’ opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM.Key resultsThe questionnaire was answered by 1,247 healthcare professionals. The three key factors influencing professionals’ opinion toward CM were personal experience, clinical experience and evidence demonstrating the physiological mechanism of CM. Personal experience was more associated with nurses’ and midwives’ opinion compared to physicians’ (80.8% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.08, [95% CI: 2.35–4.05], P<0.001 and 85.3% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.83, [95% CI: 1.95–7.53], P<0.001, respectively) as well as with professionals trained in CM compared to non-trained professionals (86.0% vs 73.2%, OR = 2.60, [95% CI: 1.92–3.53], P<0.001). Physicians relied more on randomized controlled clinical trials compared to nurses (81.3% vs 62.9%, OR = 0.43, [95% CI: 0.33–0.57], P<0.001). A majority of the respondents (82.5%) agreed that they lacked knowledge about CM and 65.0% noted that it was the patient who initially started the discussion about CM.ConclusionsDifferent professionals used different strategies to forge opinions regarding CM: physicians relied more on scientific evidence, while nurses and midwives were more influenced by personal experience. Regardless of preferred information source, most respondents did not feel prepared to address patient questions regarding CM. Enhancing interprofessional education opportunities is an important strategy to help providers become empowered to discuss CM with patients. This in turn will help patients making informed decisions in their healthcare.

Providing patient-centred care (PCC) is one of the goals described by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to deliver quality of care. Across several interventions described in the literature, there is no clear consensus of one that will best fit the diversity of women coming to seek care in maternity services and across the variety of healthcare providers (HCPs) who provide that care. A reason for that may be the lack of consensus about the model of care to adopt for maternity services reveals a neglected area of research. Managing quality of care should also mean considering the best model of care in practice for all women, incorporating the core and legitimate attributes of maternity care.

Male adolescents are at risk of developing mental disorders that can appear in early adolescence. However, most of these disorders in adolescents go unnoticed and untreated, which can result in serious consequences for their mental health and future quality of life [1]. Previous studies on the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adolescents in PEDs have provided results that were undifferentiated in terms of gender, were heterogeneous in terms of age, and limited the extraction of specific observations for boys Research paper Emergency consultations for male adolescents: Somatic and psychological characteristics and profiles of regular users. A retrospective chart review

No abstract

En soins intensifs de pédiatrie et de néonatologie, évaluer la gravité des extravasations des cathéters veineux périphériques est une difficulté majeure. L’objectif de cette étude était de montrer l’amélioration de la mesure d’extravasation par les infirmières avec la mise en place d’un instrument standardisé et adapté à l’enfant. 66 infirmières, randomisées en deux groupes, ont évalué la gravité d’extravasations sur la base de 15 vignettes cliniques. Un groupe contrôle (n=33) a évalué grâce au jugement clinique, sans instrument, et un groupe intervention (n=33) a évalué avec un instrument standardisé, la Pediatric Peripheral Intravenous Infiltration Scale. Des mesures de concordance et de sensibilité ont été calculées entre les mesures observées et les mesures de référence établies par un panel d’experts. Les mesures de concordance du groupe intervention κ=0,62 (IC 95 % ; 0,57-0,67) étaient significativement plus élevées que celles du groupe contrôle κ=0,51 (IC 95 % ; 0,45-0,57), tout comme la sensibilité des mesures du groupe intervention (69 %) comparée à celle du groupe contrôle (60 %) ( p <0,001). Ces résultats soutiennent l’intérêt d’utiliser un instrument standardisé d’évaluation de l’extravasation en clinique. Cette étude réalisée sur la base de vignettes cliniques, implique de futures recherches en situation d’extravasations réelles pour confirmer ces résultats.