BackgroundThe UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) has been shown to have a modest but statistically significant ability to predict aspects of academic performance throughout medical school. Previously, this ability has been shown to be incremental to conventional measures of educational performance for the first year of medical school. This study evaluates whether this predictive ability extends throughout the whole of undergraduate medical study and explores the potential impact of using the test as a selection screening tool.MethodsThis was an observational prospective study, linking UKCAT scores, prior educational attainment and sociodemographic variables with subsequent academic outcomes during the 5 years of UK medical undergraduate training. The participants were 6812 entrants to UK medical schools in 2007–8 using the UKCAT. The main outcome was academic performance at each year of medical school. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was also conducted, treating the UKCAT as a screening test for a negative academic outcome (failing at least 1 year at first attempt).ResultsAll four of the UKCAT scale scores significantly predicted performance in theory- and skills-based exams. After adjustment for prior educational achievement, the UKCAT scale scores remained significantly predictive for most years. Findings from the ROC analysis suggested that, if used as a sole screening test, with the mean applicant UKCAT score as the cut-off, the test could be used to reject candidates at high risk of failing at least 1 year at first attempt. However, the ‘number needed to reject’ value would be high (at 1.18), with roughly one candidate who would have been likely to pass all years at first sitting being rejected for every higher risk candidate potentially declined entry on this basis.ConclusionsThe UKCAT scores demonstrate a statistically significant but modest degree of incremental predictive validity throughout undergraduate training. Whilst the UKCAT could be considered a fairly crude screening tool for future academic performance, it may offer added value when used in conjunction with other selection measures. Future work should focus on the optimum role of such tests within the selection process and the prediction of post-graduate performance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0682-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

AIMSTo investigate parents' views and experiences of direct reporting of a suspected ADR in their child. METHODSWe audio-recorded semi-structured qualitative interviews with parents of children with suspected ADRs. Our sample included parents with (n = 17) and without (n = 27) previous experience of submitting a Yellow Card.

The challenges facing public services and non-profit organizations are complex and multifaceted, confounding the orthodoxies of bureaucratic public administration and New Public Management approaches. This article discusses the merits and potential of the emerging 'Human Learning Systems' (HLS) approach to the funding, commissioning and management of public services as an alternative management logic. Building on prior introductory work, the authors analyse the current state of development, content and operation of HLS and its collaborative process, involving more than 300 organizations. Drawing on the experience of public and non-profit service professionals in adopting and experimenting with this approach, the authors found that HLS can provide a helpful and innovative conceptual frame to promote constructive engagement with complexity in public management theory and practice.

BackgroundThree types of central venous access devices (CVADs)—peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), skin-tunnelled central catheters (Hickman-type devices), and implantable chest wall Ports (Ports)—are routinely used in the intravenous administration of anti-cancer treatment. These devices avoid the need for peripheral cannulation and allow for home delivery of treatment. Assessments of these devices have tended to focus on medical and economic factors, but there is increased interest in the importance of patient experiences and perspectives in this area. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise existing research regarding patient experiences of these CVADs to help clinicians guide, prepare, and support patients receiving CVADs for the administration of anti-cancer treatment.MethodA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL research databases will be carried out along with a supplementary reference list search. This review will include quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies published in peer-review journals, reporting some aspect(s) of patient experiences or perspectives regarding the use of PICC, Hickman, or Port CVADs for the administration of anti-cancer drugs. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included papers will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Relevant outcome data will be extracted from included studies and analysed using a thematic synthesis approach.DiscussionThe results section of the review will comprise thematic synthesis of quantitative studies, thematic synthesis of qualitative studies, and the aggregation of the two. Results will aim to offer an account of current understandings of patient experiences and perspective regarding PICC, Hickman-type, and Port devices in the context of anti-cancer treatment. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach.Systematic review registrationThis systematic review protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number: CRD42017065851. This protocol was prepared using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols checklist (PRISMA-P) (Shamseer et al., BMJ 349: 2015).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0721-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

AimsTo comprehensively investigate the incidence, nature and risk factors of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in a hospital-based population of children, with rigorous assessment of causality, severity and avoidability, and to assess the consequent impact on children and families. We aimed to improve the assessment of ADRs by development of new tools to assess causality and avoidability, and to minimise the impact on families by developing better strategies for communication.Review methodsTwo prospective observational studies, each over 1 year, were conducted to assess ADRs in children associated with admission to hospital, and those occurring in children who were in hospital for longer than 48 hours. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of ADRs in children. We used the findings from these studies to develop and validate tools to assess causality and avoidability of ADRs, and conducted interviews with parents and children who had experienced ADRs, using these findings to develop a leaflet for parents to inform a communication strategy about ADRs.ResultsThe estimated incidence of ADRs detected in children on admission to hospital was 2.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5% to 3.3%]. Of the reactions, 22.1% (95% CI 17% to 28%) were either definitely or possibly avoidable. Prescriptions originating in the community accounted for 44 out of 249 (17.7%) of ADRs, the remainder originating from hospital. A total of 120 out of 249 (48.2%) reactions resulted from treatment for malignancies. Off-label and/or unlicensed (OLUL) medicines were more likely to be implicated in an ADR than authorised medicines [relative risk (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.02;p < 0.001]. When medicines used for the treatment of oncology patients were excluded, OLUL medicines were not more likely to be implicated in an ADR than authorised medicines (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.48;p = 0.830). For children who had been in hospital for > 48 hours, the overall incidence of definite and probable ADRs based on all admissions was 15.9% (95% CI 15.0 to 16.8). Opiate analgesic drugs and drugs used in general anaesthesia (GA) accounted for > 50% of all drugs implicated in ADRs. The odds ratio of an OLUL drug being implicated in an ADR compared with an authorised drug was 2.25 (95% CI 1.95 to 2.59;p < 0.001). Risk factors identified were exposure to a GA, age, oncology treatment and number of medicines. The systematic review estimated that the incidence rates for ADRs causing hospital admission ranged from 0.4% to 10.3% of all children [pooled estimate of 2.9% (95% CI 2.6% to 3.1%)] and from 0.6% to 16.8% of all children exposed to a drug during hospital stay. New tools to assess causality and avoidability of ADRs have been developed and validated. Many parents described being dissatisfied with clinician communication about ADRs, whereas parents of children with cancer emphasised confidence in clinician management of ADRs and the way clinicians communicated about medicines. The accounts of children and young people largely reflected parents’ accounts. Clinicians described using all of the features of communication that parents wanted to see, but made active decisions about when and what to communicate to families about suspected ADRs, which meant that communication may not always match families’ needs and expectations. We developed a leaflet to assist clinicians in communicating ADRs to parents.ConclusionThe Adverse Drug Reactions In Children (ADRIC) programme has provided the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of the size and nature of ADRs in children presenting to, and cared for in, hospital, and the outputs that have resulted will improve the management and understanding of ADRs in children and adults within the NHS. Recommendations for future research: assess the values that parents and children place on the use of different medicines and the risks that they will find acceptable within these contexts; focusing on high-risk drugs identified in ADRIC, determine the optimum drug dose for children through the development of a gold standard practice for the extrapolation of adult drug doses, alongside targeted pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies; assess the research and clinical applications of the Liverpool Causality Assessment Tool and the Liverpool Avoidability Assessment Tool; evaluate, in more detail, morbidities associated with anaesthesia and surgery in children, including follow-up in the community and in the home setting and an assessment of the most appropriate treatment regimens to prevent pain, vomiting and other postoperative complications; further evaluate strategies for communication with families, children and young people about ADRs; and quantify ADRs in other settings, for example critical care and neonatology.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.