How Intuitive Is the Administration of Pediatric Emergency Medication Devices for Parents? Objective Observation and Subjective Self-Assessment.

IF 2 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacy Pub Date : 2024-02-18 DOI:10.3390/pharmacy12010036
Ruth Melinda Müller, Birthe Herziger, Sarah Jeschke, Martina Patrizia Neininger, Thilo Bertsche, Astrid Bertsche
{"title":"How Intuitive Is the Administration of Pediatric Emergency Medication Devices for Parents? Objective Observation and Subjective Self-Assessment.","authors":"Ruth Melinda Müller, Birthe Herziger, Sarah Jeschke, Martina Patrizia Neininger, Thilo Bertsche, Astrid Bertsche","doi":"10.3390/pharmacy12010036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>to assess the intuitiveness of parents' administration of pediatric emergency devices (inhalation, rectal, buccal, nasal, and auto-injector).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We invited parents without prior experience to administer the five devices to dummy dolls. We observed whether the parents chose the correct administration route and subsequently performed the correct administration procedures without clinically relevant errors. We interviewed parents for their self-assessment of their own administration performance and willingness to administer devices in actual emergencies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The correct administration route was best for the inhalation device (81/84, 96% of parents) and worst for the intranasal device (25/126, 20%). The correct administration procedures were best for the buccal device (63/98, 64%) and worst for the auto-injector device (0/93, 0%). Their own administration performance was rated to be best by parents for the inhalation device (59/84, 70%) and worst for the auto-injector device (17/93, 18%). The self-assessment of the correct administration overestimated the correct administration procedures for all the devices except the buccal one. Most parents were willing to administer the inhalation device in an emergency (67/94, 79%), while the fewest were willing to administration procedures the auto-injector device (28/93, 30%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intuitiveness concerning the correct administration route and the subsequent correct administration procedures have to be improved for all the devices examined. The parents mostly overestimated their performance. Willingness to use a device in an actual emergency depended on the device.</p>","PeriodicalId":30544,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacy","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10893533/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy12010036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: to assess the intuitiveness of parents' administration of pediatric emergency devices (inhalation, rectal, buccal, nasal, and auto-injector).

Methods: We invited parents without prior experience to administer the five devices to dummy dolls. We observed whether the parents chose the correct administration route and subsequently performed the correct administration procedures without clinically relevant errors. We interviewed parents for their self-assessment of their own administration performance and willingness to administer devices in actual emergencies.

Results: The correct administration route was best for the inhalation device (81/84, 96% of parents) and worst for the intranasal device (25/126, 20%). The correct administration procedures were best for the buccal device (63/98, 64%) and worst for the auto-injector device (0/93, 0%). Their own administration performance was rated to be best by parents for the inhalation device (59/84, 70%) and worst for the auto-injector device (17/93, 18%). The self-assessment of the correct administration overestimated the correct administration procedures for all the devices except the buccal one. Most parents were willing to administer the inhalation device in an emergency (67/94, 79%), while the fewest were willing to administration procedures the auto-injector device (28/93, 30%).

Conclusions: Intuitiveness concerning the correct administration route and the subsequent correct administration procedures have to be improved for all the devices examined. The parents mostly overestimated their performance. Willingness to use a device in an actual emergency depended on the device.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
家长使用儿科急救药具的直观程度如何?客观观察和主观自评。
背景:评估家长使用儿科急救设备(吸入式、直肠式、口腔式、鼻腔式和自动注射器)的直观性:方法:我们邀请没有相关经验的家长为假人使用这五种器械。我们观察了家长是否选择了正确的给药途径,以及随后是否执行了正确的给药程序而未出现临床相关错误。我们还采访了家长,了解他们对自己给药表现的自我评估以及在实际紧急情况下给药的意愿:结果:吸入装置的正确给药途径最佳(81/84,96% 的家长),鼻内装置的正确给药途径最差(25/126,20%)。口腔给药器的正确给药程序最佳(63/98,64%),自动注射器最差(0/93,0%)。家长对自己给药表现的评价是,吸入器最好(59/84,70%),自动注射器最差(17/93,18%)。对正确给药的自我评估高估了除口腔给药器外所有给药器的正确给药程序。大多数家长愿意在紧急情况下使用吸入装置(67/94,79%),而愿意使用自动注射器的家长最少(28/93,30%):结论:对于所有接受检查的装置,都必须提高正确给药途径和随后正确给药程序的直观性。家长们大多高估了自己的能力。在实际紧急情况下使用装置的意愿取决于装置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmacy
Pharmacy PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
9.10%
发文量
141
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Attitudes and Experiences of Patients Regarding Gender-Specific Aspects of Pain Management. Assessment of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions of Psycholeptics and Antidepressants in Outpatient Settings. Tackling Pharmaceutical Pollution Along the Product Lifecycle: Roles and Responsibilities for Producers, Regulators and Prescribers. Evaluating Pharmacists' Knowledge of Food-Drug Interactions in Croatia: Identifying Gaps and Opportunities. Cardiovascular Diseases and Metabolic Medications in the Lebanese Population: A Post Hoc Analysis from a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1