BackgroundAlthough it is known that differences in paediatric primary care (PPC) are found throughout Europe, little information exists as to where, how and who delivers this care. The aim of this study was to collect information on the current existing situation of PPC in Europe. Methods A survey, in the form of a questionnaire, was distributed to the primary or secondary care delegates of 31 European countries asking for information concerning their primary paediatric care system, demographic data, professionals involved in primary care and details of their training. All of them were active paediatricians with a broad knowledge on how PPC is organised in their countries. Results Responses were received from 29 countries. Twelve countries (41%) have a family doctor/ general practitioner (GP/FD) system, seven (24%) a paediatrician-based system and 10 (35%) a combined system. The total number of paediatricians in the 29 countries is 82 078 with 33 195 (40.4%) working in primary care. In only 15 countries (51.7%), paediatric age at the primary care level is defi ned as 0-18 years. Training in paediatrics is 5 years or more in 20 of the 29 countries. In nine countries, training is less than 5 years. The median training time of GPs/FDs in paediatrics is 4 months (IQR 3-6), with some countries having no formal paediatric training at all. The care of adolescents and involvement in school health programmes is undertaken by different health professionals (school doctors, GPs/FDs, nurses and paediatricians) depending on the country. Conclusions Systems and organisations of PPC in Europe are heterogeneous. The same is true for paediatric training, school healthcare involvement and adolescent care. More research is needed to study specifi c healthcare indicators in order to evaluate the effi cacy of different systems of PPC.

IntroductionThe Phillips Report on traumatic brain injury (TBI) in Ireland found that injury was more frequent in men and that gender differences were present in childhood. This study determined when gender differences emerge and examined the effect of gender on the mechanism of injury, injury type and severity and outcome.MethodsA national prospective, observational study was conducted over a 2-year period. All patients under 17 years of age referred to a neurosurgical service following TBI were included. Data on patient demographics, events surrounding injury, injury type and severity, patient management and outcome were collected from ‘on-call’ logbooks and neurosurgical admissions records.Results342 patients were included. Falls were the leading cause of injury for both sexes. Boys’ injuries tended to involve greater energy transfer and involved more risk-prone behaviour resulting in a higher rate of other (non-brain) injury and a higher mortality rate. Intentional injury occurred only in boys. While injury severity was similar for boys and girls, significant gender differences in injury type were present; extradural haematomas were significantly higher in boys (p=0.014) and subdural haematomas were significantly higher in girls (p=0.011). Mortality was 1.8% for girls and 4.3% for boys.ConclusionsFalls were responsible for most TBI, the home is the most common place of injury and non-operable TBI was common. These findings relate to all children. Significant gender differences exist from infancy. Boys sustained injuries associated with a greater energy transfer, were less likely to use protective devices and more likely to be injured deliberately. This results in a different pattern of injury, higher levels of associated injury and a higher mortality rate.

No abstract

A core group of EAP general paediatricians are committed to research in their practices. The information gathered will serve for future planning of research projects in the EAPRASnet to harmonize and optimize the care given to children in the primary care setting in Europe.

Background It is recognised that newly qualified doctors feel unprepared in many areas of their daily practice and that there is a gap between what students learn during medical school and their clinical responsibilities early in their postgraduate career. This study aimed to assess if undergraduate students and junior paediatric doctors met a Minimum Accepted Competency (MAC) of knowledge. Methods The knowledge of undergraduates and junior paediatric doctors was quantitatively assessed by their performance on a 30-item examination (the MAC examination). The items within this examination were designed by non-academic consultants to test ‘must-know’ knowledge for starting work in paediatrics. The performance of the students was compared with their official university examination results and with the performance of the junior doctors. Results For the undergraduate student cohort (n = 366) the mean examination score achieved was 45.9%. For the junior doctor cohort (n = 58) the mean examination score achieved was significantly higher, 64.2% (p < 0.01). 68% of undergraduate students attained the pass mark for the MAC examination whilst a significantly higher proportion, 97%, passed their official university examination (p < 0.01). A Spearman’s rank co-efficient showed a moderate but statistically significant positive correlation between students results in their official university examinations and their score in the MAC examination. Conclusion This work demonstrates a disparity between both student and junior doctor levels of knowledge with consultant expectations from an examination based on what front-line paediatricians determined as “must-know” standards. This study demonstrates the importance of involvement of end-users and future supervisors in undergraduate teaching.