Aim: This paper is a report of the comparison of perceptions of family-centred care by hospital staff (nurses, doctors and allied health staff) and parents of hospitalised children in two Australian tertiary paediatric hospitals.Background: Family-centred care is an accepted approach to caring for children and their families in hospital. Previous publications have been inconsistent, ranging from promoting its benefits and integration into practice, reporting operational difficulties and proposing that family-centred care may not be working at all. An evaluation of the model of care is long overdue. Method: A quantitative comparative cross-sectional survey was used to collect data in 2010 from a convenience sample of 309 parents of hospitalised children and 519 staff. Participants rated 20 items grouped into three subscales of respect, collaboration and support.Findings: Both parents and staff responses were positive and parents had significantly higher subscale scores for respect, collaboration and support (all p<0.0001). Parents’ responses for 19 of the 20 items were significantly higher than for staff. The item on which parents and staff did not differ was concerned with being able to question recommendations about the child’s treatment. Conclusion: Both parents and staff had positive perceptions of their family-centred care experiences. Parents’ perception of their experience was more positive than staff perceptions of their delivery of family-centred care in hospital. Whilst the positive experience by both consumers and healthcare providers is an important finding, reasons for differences, in particular in supporting parents, require further examination.
PurposeThe Quality of Care Collaborative Australia (QuoCCA) provided pediatric palliative care education across Australia with the aim of improving the quality of services. The education was delivered through a collaboration of six tertiary pediatric palliative care services, through funding for Nurse Educators, Medical Fellows, a National Allied Health Educator, and national project staff.MethodsPre- and post-education surveys were completed by participants immediately following the education, and confidence and knowledge were measured along nine domains related to the care of the child and family, including managing a new referral, symptom management, medications, preparing the family, and using local agencies.ResultsEducation was provided to over 5,500 health and human service professionals in 337 education sessions across Australia between May 2015 and June 2017. Paired pre- and post-surveys were completed by 969 participants and showed a significant improvement in all the domains measured. Those with no experience in caring for children receiving palliative care showed greater improvement following QuoCCA education compared to those with experience, although the latter had higher scores both before and after education. Similarly, those with no previous education showed greater improvement, but those with previous education showed higher scores overall. Participants in full-day and half-day sessions showed greater improvement than those in short day sessions. Thus, the dosage of education in the length of the sessions and prior attendance impacted knowledge and confidence. Topics requested by the participants were analyzed. Educator learnings were that education was more effective when tailored to the needs of the audience, was interactive, and included story-telling, case studies, and parent experiences.ConclusionThese results encouraged the continuation of the provision of education to novice and experienced professionals who care for children with a life-limiting condition, leading to higher levels of confidence and knowledge. The learnings from this evaluation will be transferred into the second round of funding for the national QuoCCA education project. The next stage will focus on developing simulation and interactive training, accessible training modules, and videos on a national website.
Aim The aims of the study were to investigate family and hospital staff views about the use of spring‐infusor devices for administration of intravenous antibiotic medications, to examine if the device is acceptable and feasible and to map a process for implementation. Design A qualitative study with a pragmatist approach, within a larger, mixed methods knowledge translation study. Methods Data were collected by semi‐structured interviews with patients who have cystic fibrosis and their parents and focus groups and interviews with hospital staff. Interviews were concluded when no new themes were identified. Thematic analysis and process mapping was undertaken. Results Six parents, nine children and 30 staff were interviewed. Families preferred spring‐infusors. Staff knowledge, experience and attitudes toward spring‐infusor use was varied. All staff acknowledged that their role is to support patient‐centred care. Spring‐infusors are preferred by families and clinicians above other IV administration devices but misconceptions about spring‐infusor use and numerous procedural challenges reduced their use.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.