CLINICAL PRACTICE: The environment and pediatric overweight: A review for nurse practitioners

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 460-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia B. McAdams
Children ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 261
Author(s):  
Priya Patel ◽  
Andrew Houck ◽  
Daniel Fuentes

Variability in neonatal clinical practice is well recognized. Respiratory management involves interdisciplinary care and often is protocol driven. The most recent published guidelines for management of respiratory distress syndrome and surfactant administration were published in 2014 and may not reflect current clinical practice in the United States. The goal of this project was to better understand variability in surfactant administration through conduct of health care provider (HCP) interviews. Questions focused on known practice variations included: use of premedication, decisions to treat, technique of surfactant administration and use of guidelines. Data were analyzed for trends and results were communicated with participants. A total of 54 HCPs participated from June to September 2020. In almost all settings, neonatologists or nurse practitioners intubated the infant and respiratory therapists administered surfactant. The INSURE (INtubation-SURrfactant-Extubation) technique was practiced by 83% of participants. Premedication prior to intubation was used by 76% of HCPs. An FiO2 ≥ 30% was the most common threshold for surfactant administration (48%). In conclusion, clinical practice variations exist in respiratory management and surfactant administration and do not seem to be specific to NICU level or institution type. It is unknown what effects the variability in clinical practice might have on clinical outcomes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 911-924
Author(s):  
Mark J Rapoport ◽  
Carla Zucchero Sarracini ◽  
Benoit M Mulsant ◽  
Dallas P Seitz ◽  
Frank Molnar ◽  
...  

Clinicians face challenges in deciding which older patients with dementia to report to transportation administrators. This study used a qualitative thematic analysis to understand the utility and limitations of implementing a computer-based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool in clinical practice. Thirteen physicians and eight nurse practitioners participated in an interview to discuss their experience using the tool. While many participants felt the tool provided a useful ‘virtual second opinion’, specialist physicians felt that the tool did not add value to their clinical practice. Barriers to using the Driving in Dementia Decision Tool included lack of integration with electronic medical records and inability to capture certain contextual nuances. Opinions varied about the impact of the tool on the relationship of clinicians with patients and their families. The Driving in Dementia Decision Tool was judged most useful by nurse practitioners and least useful by specialist physicians. This work highlights the importance of tailoring knowledge translation interventions to particular practices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document