Background: The relative efficacies of aminophylline and salbutamol in severe acute childhood asthma are currently unclear. A single bolus of salbutamol was compared with a continuous aminophylline infusion in children with severe asthma in a randomised double blind study. Methods: Children aged 1–16 years with acute severe asthma were enrolled if they showed little improvement with three nebulisers (combined salbutamol and ipratropium) administered over an hour and systemic steroids. Subjects were randomised to receive either a short intravenous bolus of salbutamol (15 μg/kg over 20 minutes) followed by a saline infusion or an aminophylline infusion (5 mg/kg over 20 minutes) followed by 0.9 mg/kg/h. Results: Forty four subjects were enrolled, with 18 randomly allocated to receive salbutamol and 26 to receive aminophylline. The groups were well matched at baseline. An intention to treat analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the asthma severity score (ASS) at 2 hours between the two groups (median (IQR) 6 (6, 8) and 6.5 (5, 8) for salbutamol and aminophylline respectively, p=0.93). A similar improvement in ASS to 2 hours was seen in the two groups (mean difference –0.08, 95% CI –0.97 to 0.80), there was a trend (p=0.07) towards a longer duration of oxygen therapy in the salbutamol group (17.8 hours (95% CI 8.5 to 37.5) v 7.0 hours (95% CI 3.4 to 14.2)), and a significantly (p=0.02) longer length of hospital stay in the salbutamol group (85.4 (95% CI 66.1 to 110.2) hours v 57.3 hours (95% CI 45.6 to 72.0)). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions: This study suggests that, in severe childhood asthma, there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of a bolus of salbutamol and an aminophylline infusion in the first 2 hours of treatment. Overall, the aminophylline infusion was superior as it significantly reduced the length of stay in hospital.

Background. Parental and professional agreement as to the presence of wheezing in infants and preschool children has been shown to be poor. Agreement on the absence or presence of physical signs on...

Background:It is twenty years since the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) defined quality in healthcare, as comprising six domains: person-centredness, timeliness, efficiency, effectiveness, safety and equity. Since then, a new quality movement has emerged, with the development of numerous interventions aimed at improving quality, with a focus on accessibility, safety and effectiveness of care. Further gains in equity and timeliness have proven even more challenging. The challenge:With the emergence of “service-oriented” systems, complexity science, the challenges of climate change, the growth of social media and the internet and the new reality of COVID-19, the original domains proposed by the IOM invite reflection on their relevance and possibility for improvement. The possible solution:In this paper, we propose a revised model of quality that is built on never-ending learning and includes new domains, such as Ecology and Transparency, which reflect the changing worldview of healthcare. We also introduce the concept of person- or “kin-centred care” to emphasise the shared humanity of people involved in the interdependent work. The change ofPerson Centred CaretoKin Centred Careintroduces a broader concept of the person and ensures that Person Centred Care is included in every domain of quality rather than as a separate domain. The concentration on the technological aspects of quality is an example of the problem in the past. This is a more expansive view of what “person-centredness” began. The delivery of health and healthcare requires people working in differing roles, with explicit attention to the lived realities of the people in the roles of professional and patient. The new model will provide a construct that may make the attainment of equity in healthcare more possible with a focus on kindness for all.

Quality and safety of care are national priorities. Healthcare-acquired infections are now considered preventable and unacceptable. Care bundles are used to prevent and treat health-care acquired infections in adults. This paper considers the evidence and context for their use in children. There is evidence that care bundles are effective in the adult literature. There have been few reports in the paediatric literature on the implementation of care bundles in children. Paediatric reports focus on the impact of interventions to reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia and central line infections. Recent articles suggest that care bundles are beneficial as part of a comprehensive improvement programme in the ICU. Other papers confirm that ventilator-associated pneumonia bundles can be translated from adults to children, supporting the business case for improving quality. The adult and paediatric literature agree that care bundles are valuable tools for ensuring that evidence-based medicine is delivered reliably. Care bundles should be adopted in paediatric and neonatal units. In particular, if applied correctly, they are likely to significantly reduce certain health-care acquired infections. Further research is needed to refine the individual elements of the bundles and to evaluate new applications for them.

The measurement and examination of adverse events (AEs) that occur in children during hospital admissions is essential if we are to prevent, reduce or ameliorate the harm experienced. The UK Paediatric Trigger Tool (UKPTT) is a method of retrospective case note review that measures harm in hospitalised children. Objectives: To examine the harm resulting from the processes of healthcare in hospitalised children from centres providing data to the National Health Service (NHS) Institute UKPTT data portal, to understand the positive predictive values of triggers and to make recommendations for the further development of the trigger tool. Setting: 25 hospitals across the UK, including secondary, tertiary and quaternary paediatric centres. Participants: Randomly selected children who were admitted to hospital for longer than 24 h. Outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the rate of harm (the percentage of children experiencing one or more AEs during a hospital admission). Secondary measures were the severity of harm and performance of triggers. Results: Data from 3992 patient admissions were reviewed across the hospitals and submitted to the trigger tool portal from February 2008 to November 2011. At least one AE was reported for 567 (14.2%) patients, with 211 (5.3%) experiencing more than one event. There were 1001 AEs identified. Where harm occurred, it was considered temporary for 923 (92.2%) AEs; however, 43 (4.3%) AEs resulted in the need for life-sustaining interventions, 18 (1.8%) AEs led to permanent harm and for 17 children (1.7% of AEs) the AE was believed to have contributed to death. Conclusions: There is a significant, measurable level of harm experienced by children admitted to hospitals in the UK. While most of this harm is temporary, some of it is serious. The UKPTT offers organisations the means to measure and examine the AEs occurring in their hospital in order to reduce harm.