These data could serve as a basis for re-educating nursing staff on the subject. Staff with more clinical experience could give appropriate guidance to other members of staff on decisions to apply restraints. More effective alternative interventions to restraining clients should be explored. Once the gaps in knowledge are closed, more positive attitudes among staff towards the use of restraints can be cultivated, thus leading to a higher standard of nursing practice.

ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature and determine frequencies of adverse drug events (ADE) associated with pediatric asthma medications.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched six bibliographic databases between January 1991 and January 2017. Study eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were independently completed and verified by two reviewers. We included randomized control trials (RCT), case-control, cohort, or quasi-experimental studies where the primary objective was identifying ADE in children 1 month– 18 years old exposed to commercial asthma medications. The primary outcome was ADE frequency.FindingsOur search identified 14,540 citations. 46 studies were included: 24 RCT, 15 cohort, 4 RCT pooled analyses, 1 case-control, 1 open-label trial and 1 quasi-experimental study. Studies examined the following drug classes: inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (n = 24), short-acting beta-agonists (n = 10), long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) (n = 3), ICS + LABA (n = 3), Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists (n = 3) and others (n = 3). 29 studies occurred in North America, and 29 were industry funded. We report a detailed index of 406 ADE descriptions and frequencies organized by drug class. The majority of data focuses on ICS, with 174 ADE affecting 13 organ systems including adrenal and growth suppression. We observed serious ADE, although they were rare, with frequency ranging between 0.9–6% per drug. There were no confirmed deaths, except for 13 potential deaths in a LABA study including combined adult and pediatric participants. We identified substantial methodological concerns, particularly with identifying ADE and determining severity. No studies utilized available standardized causality, severity or preventability assessments.ConclusionThe majority of studies focus on ICS, with adrenal and growth suppression described. Serious ADE are relatively uncommon, with no confirmed pediatric deaths. We identify substantial methodological concerns, highlighting need for standardization with future research examining pediatric asthma medication safety.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Continuing professional development (CPD) activities delivered by simulation to independently practicing physicians are becoming increasingly popular. At present, the educational potential of such simulations is limited by the inability to create effective curricula for the CPD audience. In contrast to medical trainees, CPD activities lack pre-defined learning expectations and, instead, emphasize self-directed learning, which may not encompass true learning needs. We hypothesize that we could generate an interprofessional CPD simulation curriculum for practicing pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians in a single-center tertiary care hospital using a deliberative approach combined with Kern's six-step method of curriculum development. Methods: From a comprehensive core list of 94 possible PEM clinical presentations and procedures, we generated an 18scenario CPD simulation curriculum. We conducted a comprehensive perceived and unperceived needs assessment on topics to include, incorporating opinions of faculty PEM physicians, hospital leadership, interprofessional colleagues, and expert opinion on patient benefit, simulation feasibility, and value of simulating the case for learning. To systematically rank items while balancing the needs of all stakeholders, we used a prioritization matrix to generate objective "priority scores." These scores were used by CPD planners to deliberately determine the simulation curriculum contents. Results: We describe a novel three-step CPD simulation curriculum design method involving (1) systematic and deliberate needs assessment, (2) systematic prioritization, and (3) curriculum synthesis. Of practicing PEM physicians, 17/20 responded to the perceived learning needs survey, while 6/6 leaders responded to the unperceived needs assessment. These ranked data were input to a five-variable prioritization matrix generating priority scores. Based on local needs, the highest 18 scoring clinical presentations and procedures were selected for final inclusion in a PEM CPD simulation curriculum. An interim survey of PEM physician (21/24 respondents) opinions was collected, with 90% finding educational value with the curriculum. The curriculum includes items not identified by self-directed learning that PEM physicians thought should be included. Conclusions: We highlight a novel methodology for PEM physicians that can be adapted by other specialities when designing their own CPD simulation curriculum. This methodology objectively considers and prioritizes the needs of practicing physicians and stakeholders involved in CPD.