BACKGROUND: Paediatric palliative care provides supportive care to children with life-threatening or life-limiting illnesses throughout the disease trajectory. Up to 42% of children receiving palliative care in Canada will die within a freestanding paediatric hospice or designated end-of-life care bed. Few studies have assessed families' experiences of this care within freestanding paediatric hospices. OBJECTIVES: To find and describe literature relating to family experiences in paediatric hospice palliative care throughout the end-of-life care journey including grief and bereavement. CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria: Children antepartum to 18 years or older if on paediatric palliative care service. Research conducted in freestanding paediatric hospices that focused on families' experiences and perceptions of end-of-life and grief and bereavement care. Full-text articles available in English. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Adult palliative and end-of-life care, respite care, palliative care provided in acute or community settings, professional perspectives, unexpected or sudden child death, pregnancy after loss. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched from database inception until the present. Grey literature was also searched for relevant results. CHARTING METHODS: The scoping review was guided by recommendations from Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. RESULTS: A total of 4250 papers were retrieved, of which 10 met the scoping review criteria. The majority of studies were conducted in the UK. Three major themes emerged: more supportive care for families including grief and bereavement support, the hospice experience itself and future research areas. CONCLUSIONS: There is little literature that focuses specifically on the needs of families within freestanding paediatric hospices. Further examination of the themes identified above provides an opportunity for future research.

This paper provides an overview of the evidence around how the health systems and policy response to the Covid-19 pandemic affected children with long-term conditions in the UK. We conducted a scoping review guided by the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. The PubMed and PsycINFO databases (2019-August 2021) were searched and screened for papers (of any design) by 2 reviewers independently. The electronic database search was supplemented by manual searching. A total of 32 papers were identified, including studies on UK paediatric populations, studies on chronic illness in the UK, and international studies on chronic illness and children (including data from the UK). Most studies focussed on epilepsy, cancer, diabetes or asthma. Three categories of impact were identified: (a) impact of policy response on the delivery of and access to child healthcare (b) impact of innovative practice on children's physical and mental health (c) impact of service restrictions on children's physical health. Our results showed that policy response to the pandemic significantly affected healthcare provision for children with chronic illness in the UK. However, the specific assessment of the impact of service restrictions and innovative practice on children's health and wellbeing is limited. Future research is required to fill knowledge gaps on changes in access to effective diagnostic and treatment investigations and their impact on a range of paediatric patients during the pandemic.

Objectives: To review literature relating to evidence, context and facilitation to describe knowledge translation in paediatric palliative care. Paediatric palliative care requires competences including both paediatric specialists as well as services that are developed for this purpose, and there is a need to facilitate paediatric palliative care knowledge translation. Promoting Action on Research Implementation in the Health Services (PARiHS) is a framework for knowledge translation, which highlights the relationships between evidence, context and facilitation. PARiHS framework has been revised and updated in a new version called i-PARiHS. Methods: The electronic databases AgeLine, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus were searched. Papers included were limited to English and Swedish publications and restricted to publications dated between 1993 and August 2019. All types of observational and experimental studies using any research design were included. Results and conclusions: Thirty-eight articles were included and there was a common vision about how and when palliative care should be offered to children. The i-PARiHS was used as a lens to describe the knowledge translation in paediatric palliative care. Symptom relief was the most commonly described evidence-based strategy, and the hospital environment was the most commonly described context. Different types of education were the most commonly used strategies to facilitate knowledge translation. The results mainly focused on increasing knowledge of palliative care in paediatric care. To sum up, the results report strategies to achieve knowledge translation of paediatric palliative care, and these can be interpreted as a guideline for how this process can be facilitated. Trial registration number: CRD42018100663.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Bundle interventions are becoming increasingly used as patient safety interventions. The objective of this study was to describe and categorize which bundle interventions are used to reduce prescribing errors (PEs) and administration errors (AEs) in hospitalized children and to assess the quality of the published literature. METHODS: Articles published in English and Arabic between 1985 and September 2015 were sought in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL. Bibliographies of included articles were screened for additional studies. We included any study with a comparator group reporting rates of PEs and AEs. Two authors independently extracted data, classified interventions in each bundle and assessed the studies for potential risk of bias. Constituent interventions of the bundles were categorized using both the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) taxonomy of intervention and the Behavioural Change Wheel (BCW). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. All bundles contained interventions that were either professional, organizational or a mixture of both. According to the BCW, studies used interventions with functions delivering environmental restructuring (17/17), education (16/17), persuasion (4/17), training (3/17), restriction (3/17), incentivization (1/17), coercion (1/17), modelling (1/17) and enablement (1/17). Nine studies had bundles with two intervention functions, and eight studies had three or more intervention functions. All studies were low quality before/after studies. Selection bias varied between studies. Performance bias was either low or unclear. Attrition bias was unclear, and detection bias was rated high in most studies. Ten studies described the interventions fairly well, and seven studies did not adequately explain the interventions used. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This novel analysis in a systematic review showed that bundle interventions delivering two or more intervention functions have been investigated but that the study quality was too poor to assess impact

BACKGROUND: Understanding the impact of effective paediatric adherence promotion interventions on patients, families and the healthcare system is necessary to inform efforts to improve healthcare quality and control costs. Building on previous research suggesting that improving adherence may have far-reaching benefits, the objective of this study was to quantify the impact of effective adherence promotion interventions for children and adolescents with a chronic medical condition on patients, families and the healthcare system. METHODS: Authors systematically reviewed articles indexed in PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL to identify randomized controlled trials of paediatric adherence promotion interventions. Interventions that improved paediatric adherence and examined patient-level, family-level or healthcare system-level outcomes in children and adolescents (M age

Objectives Relevant guidelines and consensuses for COVID-19 contain recommendations aimed at optimising the management in paediatric wards. The goal of this study was to determine the quality of those recommendations and provide suggestions to hospital managers for the adjustment of existing hospital prevention and control strategies, and also to offer recommendations for further research. Design A rapid review of the guidelines and consensuses for the management in paediatric wards facing COVID-19. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, UpToDate, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang database and relevant websites such as medlive.cn, dxy.cn, the National Health and Health Commission and the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention were systematically searched through late May 2020. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool was then used to assess the quality of the selected articles and summarise the relevant evidence concerning management in paediatric wards. Results A total of 35 articles were included, composed of 3 consensus guidelines, 25 expert consensuses and 7 expert opinions. Of the 35 papers, 24 were from China, 2 from the USA, 1 from Spain, 1 from Brazil, 1 from Saudi Arabia and 6 from multinational cooperative studies. Scores for the six domains of the AGREE II tool (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence) were 98.57%, 53.57%, 17.92%, 69.62%, 26.96% and 50.35%, respectively. Recommendations for nosocomial infection and control, human resource management as well as management of paediatric patients and their families were summarised. Conclusions Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, the quality of rapid guidelines and consensuses for the management in paediatric wards affected by COVID-19 is unsatisfactory. In the future, it will be necessary to develop more high-quality guidelines or consensuses for the management in paediatric wards to deal with nosocomial outbreaks in order to fully prepare for emergency medical and health problems.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of telemedicine on the access and quality of paediatric emergency care remains largely unexplored because most studies to date are focused on adult emergency care. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine if telemedicine is effective in improving quality of paediatric emergency care with regards to access, process measures of care, appropriate disposition, patient-centred outcomes and cost-related outcomes. METHODS: We developed a systematic review protocol in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review) guidelines. We included studies that evaluated the impact of synchronous and asynchronous forms of telemedicine on patient outcomes and process measures in the paediatric emergency care setting. Inclusion criteria were study setting, study design, intervention type, age, outcome measures, publication year and language. RESULTS: Overall, 1.9% (28/1434) studies met study inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies revealed that telemedicine increased accuracy of patient assessment in the pre-clinical setting, improved time-to disposition, guided referring emergency department (ED) physicians in performing appropriate life-saving procedures and led to cost savings when compared to regular care. Studies focused on telepsychiatry demonstrated decreased length of stay (LOS), transfer rates and improved patient satisfaction scores. DISCUSSION: Our comprehensive review revealed that telemedicine enhances paediatric emergency care, enhances therapeutic decision-making and improves diagnostic accuracy, and reduces costs. Specifically, telemedicine has its most significant impact on LOS, access to specialized care, cost savings and patient satisfaction. However, there was a relative lack of randomized control trials, and more studies are needed to substantiate its impact on morbidity and mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing quality of healthcare is integral in determining progress towards equitable health outcomes worldwide. Using the WHO 'Standards for improving quality of care for children and young adolescents in health facilities' as a reference standard, we aimed to evaluate existing tools that assess quality of care for children. METHODS: We undertook a systematic literature review of publications/reports between 2008 and 2020 that reported use of quality of care assessment tools for children (<15 years) in health facilities. Identified tools were reviewed against the 40 quality statements and 510 quality measures from the WHO Standards to determine the extent each tool was consistent with the WHO Standards. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO ID: CRD42020175652. RESULTS: Nine assessment tools met inclusion criteria. Two hospital care tools developed by WHO-Europe and WHO-South-East Asia Offices had the most consistency with the WHO Standards, assessing 291 (57·1%) and 208 (40·8%) of the 510 quality measures, respectively. Remaining tools included between 33 (6·5%) and 206 (40·4%) of the 510 quality measures. The WHO-Europe tool was the only tool to assess all 40 quality statements. The most common quality measures absent were related to experience of care, particularly provision of educational, emotional and psychosocial support to children and families, and fulfilment of children's rights during care. CONCLUSION: Quality of care assessment tools for children in health facilities are missing some key elements highlighted by the WHO Standards. The WHO Standards are, however, extensive and applying all the quality measures in every setting may not be feasible. A consensus of key indicators to monitor the WHO Standards is required. Existing tools could be modified to include priority indicators to strengthen progress reporting towards delivering quality health services for children. In doing so, a balance between comprehensiveness and practical utility is needed.