ObjectiveThere is international variation in recommendations regarding developmental screening and growing recognition of the low sensitivity of commonly used developmental screening tools. Our objective was to examine the predictive validity of the Infant Toddler Checklist (ITC) at 18 months to predict a developmental diagnosis at 3–5 years, in a primary care setting.MethodsWe designed a prospective cohort study, recruiting in primary care in Toronto, Canada. Parents completed the ITC at the 18-month visit and reported developmental diagnosis at 3–5 years (developmental delay, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning problem). We calculated screening test properties with 95% CIs. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for important covariates.ResultsIn the final sample (n=488), mean age at screening was 18.5 (SD 1.1) months, and at follow-up was 46.6 (SD 10.0) months. At screening, 46 (9.4%) had a positive ITC. At follow-up, 26 (5.3%) had a developmental diagnosis, including: developmental delay (n=22), ASD (n=4), ADHD (n=1), learning problem (n=1); parents of two children each reported two diagnoses (total of 28 diagnoses). Of four children with a diagnosis of ASD at follow-up, three had a positive ITC at 18 months. The ITC specificity (92%, 95% CI: 89% to 94%) and negative predictive value (96%, 95% CI: 95% to 97%) were high; false positive rate was low (8%, 95% CI: 6% to 11%); sensitivity was low (31%, 95% CI: 14% to 52%). There was a strong association between a positive ITC at 18 months and later developmental diagnosis (adjusted OR 4.48, 95% CI: 1.72 to 11.64; p=0.002).ConclusionThe ITC had high specificity, high negative predictive value, low false positive rate, and identified children with later developmental delay and ASD. The ITC had low sensitivity, similar to other screening tools underscoring the importance of continuous developmental surveillance at all health supervision visits.

No abstract

Introduction: Background: Studies in the US have demonstrated that many primary care staff and offices are inadequately prepared for paediatric emergencies. Although the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) recently reaffirmed their Guidelines for Paediatric Emergency Equipment and Supplies for a Physicians Office, no evaluation has been made regarding the impact of publishing these recommendations, or on the state of preparedness for paediatric emergencies in family physician offices. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate awareness and adherence of family physicians in Ontario to the CPS guidelines on preparedness for paediatric emergencies. Methods: We conducted a province-wide, cross-sectional survey of 749 randomly selected family physicians. Participants were asked to complete a 14-question survey regarding clinic characteristics, incidence of paediatric emergencies, and preparedness of the clinic in the case of a paediatric emergency. Ethics approval was obtained from the regional Ethics Review Board. Results: 104 physicians responded to our Ontario survey (response rate of 14.8%). 71.2% of respondents reported seeing more than 10 children per week, and 58.7% and had experienced at least one paediatric emergency in the past year. The proportion of physicians reporting paediatric emergencies within the last year increased with the number of children seen - 37.9% of physicians who saw fewer than 10 children per week reported an emergency, compared to 85.7% of those who saw more than 40 children per week. 85.6% of respondents reported that they were unaware of the CPS guidelines on paediatric emergency preparedness. Only 9.6% of respondents were aware of the guidelines, and even fewer, 3.8% had read them. Of the physicians who were unaware of the guidelines, 4.5% [CI=0.2, -0.09] engaged in mock code sessions, 29.2% [CI=0.2, 0.2] were up-to-date on Paediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS), 1.1% [CI=0.03, -0.01] had written protocols outlining safe transport of children to hospitals, and 50.6% [CI=0.4, 0.6] stocked half or more of the recommended supplies. In comparison, of the physicians who were aware of the guidelines, 14.3% [CI=0.3, -0.04] engaged in mock code sessions, 35.7% [CI=0.1, 0.6] were up-to-date on PALS, 7.1% [CI=0.2, -0.06] had written protocols, and 78.6% [CI=0.8, 0.8] stocked half or more of the recommended supplies. Conclusion: A large proportion of respondents had experienced at least one paediatric emergency in the past year, but were overall underprepared. The majority of respondents, 85.6%, were not aware of the guidelines, compared to 9.6% who were aware of them. However, offices with the latter were more adherent to the guidelines recommendations. It will be important for CPS to consider how to further advocate for paediatric emergency preparedness in clinics that see children regularly.

BACKGROUND Studies in the US have demonstrated that many primary care staff and offices are inadequately prepared for paediatric emergencies. Although the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) recently reaffirmed their “Guidelines for Paediatric Emergency Equipment and Supplies for a Physician’s Office”, no evaluation has been made regarding the impact of publishing these recommendations, or on the state of preparedness for paediatric emergencies in family physician offices. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate awareness of and adherence of family physicians in Ontario to the CPS guidelines on preparedness for paediatric emergencies. DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a province-wide, cross-sectional survey of 749 randomly selected family physicians. Participants were asked to complete a 14-question survey regarding clinic characteristics, incidence of paediatric emergencies, and preparedness of the clinic in the case of a paediatric emergency. Ethics approval was obtained from the regional Ethics Review Board. RESULTS 94 physicians responded to our survey (response rate of 13.1%). 68.1% of respondents reported seeing more than 10 children per week, and 59.6% and had experienced at least one paediatric emergency in the past year. The proportion of physicians reporting paediatric emergencies within the last year increased with the number of children seen - 37.9% of physicians who saw fewer than 10 children per week reported an emergency, compared to 100.0% of those who saw more than 40 children per week. Only 4.3% respondents reported that they were unaware of the CPS guidelines on paediatric emergency preparedness. Although 85.1% of respondents were aware of the guidelines, only 10.6% of respondents had read them. Of the physicians who were aware of but had not read the guidelines, 2.5% engaged in mock code sessions, 27.8% were up-to-date on Paediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS), 1.3% had written protocols outlining safe transport of children to hospitals, and 41.8% stocked half or more of the recommended supplies. In comparison, of the physicians who had read the guidelines, 20.0% engaged in mock code sessions, 50.0% were up-to-date on PALS, 10.0% had written protocols, and 70.0% stocked half or more of the recommended supplies. CONCLUSION A large proportion of respondents had experienced at least one paediatric emergency in the past year, but were overall underprepared. There was a discrepancy between physicians who were aware of the CPS guidelines on emergency preparedness (85.1%), and those who have actually read them (10.6%), though offices with the latter were more adherent to the guidelines’ recommendations. It will be important for CPS to consider how to further advocate for paediatric emergency preparedness in clinics that see children regularly.

No abstract