Search

Objective: Recovery from acute wheeze and asthma attacks should be supported with safety netting, including treatment advice. We evaluated emergency department (ED) discharge practices for acute childhood wheeze/asthma attacks to describe variation in safety netting and recovery bronchodilator dosing., Design: Two-phase study between June 2020 and September 2021, comprising (1) Departmental discharge practice survey, and (2) Analysis of written discharge instructions for caregivers., Setting: Secondary and tertiary EDs in rural and urban settings, from Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI)., Main Outcome Measures: Describe practice and variation in discharge advice, treatment recommendations and safety netting provision., Results: Of 66/71 (93%) participating sites, 62/66 (93.9%) reported providing written safety netting information. 52/66 (78.8%) 'nearly always' assessed inhaler/spacer technique; routine medication review (21/66; 31.8%) and adherence (16/66; 21.4%) were less frequent. In phase II, 61/66 (92.4%) submitted their discharge documents; 50/66 (81.9%) included bronchodilator plans. 11/66 (18.0%) provided Personalised Asthma Action Plans as sole discharge information. 45/50 (90%) provided 'fixed' bronchodilator dosing regimes; dose tapering was common (38/50; 76.0%). Median starting dose was 10 puffs 4 hourly (27/50, 54.0%); median duration was 4 days (29/50, 58.0%). 13/61 (21.3%) did not provide bronchodilator advice for acute deterioration; where provided, 42/48 (87.5%) recommended 10 puffs immediately. Subsequent dosages varied considerably. Common red flags included inability to speak (52/61, 85.2%), inhalers not lasting 4 hours (51/61, 83.6%) and respiratory distress (49/61, 80.3%)., Conclusions: There is variation in bronchodilator dosing and safety netting content for recovery following acute wheeze and asthma attacks. This reflects a lack of evidence, affirming need for further multicentre studies regarding bronchodilator recovery strategies and optimal safety netting advice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Time spent in 24-h movement behaviors is important to health and wellbeing in childhood, but levels of these behaviors in children with chronic disease are unknown., Methods: A case-control-study included 80 children with chronic disease; 20 with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), 20 with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), 20 with congenital heart disease (CHD), 20 with cystic fibrosis (CF); pair-matched individually for age, sex, and timing of measures with 80 healthy children. Habitual time spent in movement behaviors and step counts were all measured with an activPAL accelerometer over 7 days. Comparisons against recommendations and differences between the groups were made., Results: Time spent in physical activity and step counts/day were significantly lower in T1DM and CHD groups compared to controls. Only 20/80 children with chronic disease and 29/80 controls met step count recommendations. Sedentary time was significantly higher in children with CF compared to controls. Time spent asleep was slightly greater in children with chronic disease, significant only for the JIA group. Sleep disruption was consistently greater in those with chronic disease, reaching significance for T1DM, CHD, and CF groups., Conclusions: For some groups of children with chronic disease, 24-h movement behaviors may differ substantially from recommendations, and slightly but systematically from their healthy peers. Optimizing levels of 24-h movement behaviors should confer a number of benefits for child health, development, and wellbeing.