Search

Abstract: Background: Standing frames are used for children with cerebral palsy (CP). They may improve body structure and function (e.g., reducing risk of hip subluxation, and improving bladder and bowel function), improving activity (e.g., motor abilities) and participation (e.g., interaction with peers), but there is little evidence that they do. We aimed to identify current UK standing frame practice for children with CP and to understand stakeholder views regarding their clinical benefits and challenges to use. Method: Three populations were sampled: clinicians prescribing standing frames for children with CP (n = 305), professionals (health and education) working with children with CP who use standing frames (n = 155), and parents of children with CP who have used standing frames (n = 91). Questionnaires were developed by the co‐applicant group and piloted with other professionals and parents of children with CP. They were distributed online via clinical and parent networks across the UK. Results: Prescribing practice was consistent, but achieving the prescribed use was not always possible. Respondents in all groups reported the perceived benefits of frames, which include many domains of the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health for Children and Youth. Challenges of use are related to physical space and child‐reported pain. Conclusions: These survey findings provide information from key stakeholders regarding current UK standing frame practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The aims of this study were to determine whether UK child development teams (CDTs) have implemented good practice recommendations for the co-ordinated assessment and support of children with neurodisability and to explore some of the factors associated with variations in good practice implementation. Design Surveys were sent to every UK CDT in 2009/2010. Responses about CDT provision and ways of working were compared with good practice recommendations from national policy documents and professional organizations. The extent to which CDTs in England and Wales met 11 selected good practice recommendations was scored; teams in Scotland and Northern Ireland were given a score out of 9 to reflect the optional use of the common assessment framework and early support materials in these countries. Results Responses were received from 225/240 (94%) UK CDTs. Thirty-seven per cent of CDTs in England and Wales had implemented nine or more of the 11 recommendations. Fifty-nine per cent of teams in Scotland and 78% of teams in Northern Ireland met between six and nine recommendations of good working practice. Higher levels of implementation of recommendations were found when the CDT had a Child Development Centre base and for teams who had received increased funding in the 5 years preceding the survey. Conclusions There was considerable variability in the degree to which CDTs implemented good practice recommendations for the diagnosis and management of children with neurodisability. Evidence about child and parent satisfaction, and the effectiveness of CDT practices and provision, is required, so policymakers, healthcare commissioners and clinicians can provide the most appropriate services to children with neurodisability and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Drooling is common in children with disordered oral-motor control. There is little evidence about the comparative effectiveness of different interventions used to reduce the impact of drooling. Anecdotal reports suggest clinicians' management of drooling varies widely. The aims of this survey were to establish which drooling interventions are currently used, how their effectiveness is monitored and how frequently adverse effects are reported. Methods 151 UK paediatricians completed a questionnaire about their management of drooling. Results Paediatricians saw one new child with problematic drooling and three follow-up children per month. The most common prescribing pattern was hyoscine first line (84.7%) followed by glycopyrronium bromide second line. The reported rate of adverse effects of medications was lower than expected (median 10% for hyoscine). Very few paediatricians used standardized methods of measuring the medication's effectiveness or adverse effects. Conclusion Paediatricians regularly see small numbers of children with problematic drooling. Their clinical management of drooling varies; this is most likely because of a lack of evidence about the most effective approach. Comparative trials of interventions and the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines would improve the management of children's drooling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]