Ruth Melinda Müller, Birthe Herziger, Sarah Jeschke, Martina Patrizia Neininger, Thilo Bertsche, Astrid Bertsche
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
How Intuitive Is the Administration of Pediatric Emergency Medication Devices for Parents? Objective Observation and Subjective Self-Assessment.
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.