Variation in how mothers, health visitors and general practitioners use the personal child health record.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, a national personal child health record (PCHR) with local adaptations is in widespread use. Previous studies report that parents find the PCHR useful and that health visitors use it more than other health professionals. This study was carried out in Nottingham, where the local PCHR is similar to the national PCHR. OBJECTIVES: To explore variation in use of the PCHR made by mothers with differing social characteristics, to compare heath visitors' and general practitioners' (GPs') use of the PCHR, and to compare health visitors' and GPs' perceptions of the PCHR with those of mothers for whose children they provide care. METHODS: Questionnaires to 534 parents registered with 28 general practices and interviews with a health visitor and GP at each practice. A score per mother for perceived usefulness of the PCHR was developed from the questionnaire, and variation in the score was investigated by linear regression adjusted for clustering. RESULTS: Four hundred and one (75%) questionnaires were returned. Three hundred and twenty-five (82%) mothers thought the PCHR was very good or good. Higher scores for usage of the PCHR were significantly associated with teenage and first-time mothers, but no association was found with mother's social class, education or being a single parent. There was no association between variation in the score and practice, health visitor or GP characteristics. Mothers, health visitors and GPs reported that mothers took the PCHR to baby clinic more frequently than when seeing their GP, and that health visitors wrote in the PCHR more frequently than GPs. Eighteen (67%) health visitors and 20 (71%) GPs said they had difficulty recording information in the PCHR. CONCLUSION: The PCHR is used by most mothers and is important for providing health promotion material to all families with young children. It may be particularly useful for first-time and teenage mothers.

Assessing the quality of preschool child health surveillance in primary care: a pilot study in one health district.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework for measuring the quality of preschool child health surveillance acceptable to primary health care teams and measurable at individual primary health care team level. DESIGN: Published research evidence was identified and criteria developed by a local multidisciplinary expert group. The criteria were discussed with primary health care teams. How well they were achieved was assessed. SETTING: Twenty-eight general practices in one health authority area. METHODS: Data collection included observation of baby clinics, interviews with health visitors and general practitioners (GPs), questionnaires to parents, collation of child health surveillance reviews recorded in personal child health records and immunization rates. RESULTS: The criteria for assessing preschool child health surveillance were thought to be acceptable and achievable by primary health care teams. Fifteen of the 22 criteria used to assess baby clinics were met by over 90 of practices. Almost all practices completed child health surveillance reviews within a standard time and achieved 90 coverage for primary immunizations. At many practices, less than 90 of parents felt welcome at the baby clinic, usually had enough time to talk to their health visitor or had the purpose or results of the 6 to 8 week child health surveillance review explained to them. GPs were less likely than health visitors to discuss health promotion at child health surveillance reviews (chi(2) 11.52, P = 0.0007). Few practices had a call-up and recall system for all reviews. CONCLUSION: The framework that we developed for assessing preschool child health surveillance was acceptable and achievable by primary health care teams.

Are child health surveillance reviews just routine examinations of normal children?

BACKGROUND: The provision and content of child health surveillance (CHS) has changed greatly since 1990. However, its value continues to be questioned. The introduction of the personal child health record (PCHR) has provided a new means of collecting data about CHS. AIM: To identify what problems are recorded at CHS reviews in the PCHR during the first year of life, and what follow-up/referrals result directly from these reviews. METHOD: A total of 28 practices were recruited from one health authority. All babies born to mothers registered with study practices during one year were followed up. Health visitors returned copies of CHS reviews recorded in children's PCHRs. Written comments on returned reviews were analysed. RESULTS: In all, 2308 babies were entered into the study and 2001 (87%) were followed up for one year. A total of 7848 (78%) CHS reviews were returned. Physical problems were recorded in 58% of children at the 10-14 day, 35% at the six to eight week, and 39% at the six to nine month review. Of physical problems recorded at CHS reviews, 30% required follow-up in primary care and 7% required referral to hospital. Other problems were recorded less frequently and health promotion was recorded at only 7.5% of CHS reviews. CONCLUSION: Child health surveillance provides important opportunities to discuss problems that may cause parental concern and to identify children requiring treatment or follow-up. The design and use of the PCHR needs to change to reflect increasing emphasis on health promotion.