Fifteen years of shared care for paediatric oncology, haematology and palliative patients across Queensland: The role of Regional Case Managers.

OBJECTIVE: A shared care model was implemented in 2006 in Queensland to facilitate paediatric oncology, haematology and palliative care patients receiving care as close to home as possible. Following initial diagnosis, care planning and treatment at the tertiary children's hospital, appropriate local care was coordinated by Regional Case Managers (RCMs) established at each of 10 Shared Care Units (SCUs). This enabled safe and quality regional care supported by a statewide network providing clinical governance and education. This paper examines learnings from 15 years of this shared care. SETTING: Ten hospitals throughout Queensland facilitated a statewide model of shared care for paediatric oncology, haematology and palliative care patients, supported by a tertiary hub in Brisbane. PARTICIPANTS: Regional Case Managers in Shared Care Units and their supporting staff. DESIGN: Staff from SCUs were surveyed and focus group interviews conducted. RESULTS: The paper reviews the attributes, knowledge and experience required for RCMs. Standards of care were supported through education workshops, clinical placements, chemotherapy credentialing, guidelines and standards. RCMs facilitated communication and information sharing with the tertiary centre, advocated for their cohort of patients locally and streamlined and supported the family's experience of care. CONCLUSION: The RCM role provided invaluable clinical leadership for the care of paediatric oncology, haematology and palliative patients across Queensland. As new treatments evolve, the expertise and coordination provided by the RCMs will be even more critical. Achieving high-quality shared care outcomes is underpinned by the RCMs drive to achieve statewide safety and support for this cohort of children.

Central venous catheter dressings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Gauze and tape or transparent polyurethane film dressings such as Tegaderm, Opsite or Opsite IV3000 are the most common types of dressing used to secure central venous catheters (CVCs). Currently, there are no clear guidelines as to which type of dressing is the most appropriate. AIMS: To identify whether there are any differences between gauze and tape and/or transparent polyurethane film dressings in the incidence of CVC-related infection, catheter-related sepsis, catheter security, tolerance to dressing material, dressing condition and ease of application in hospitalized patients. METHODS: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Medline, Embase and CancerLit databases were searched to identify any controlled trials comparing the effects of gauze and tape and/or transparent polyurethane dressings on CVCs. Additional references were sought from published and non-published literature. Twenty-three studies were reviewed. Data were extracted independently from each paper by two members of the review team and results compared. Differences were resolved either by consensus or referral to a third person. Authors were contacted for missing information. RESULTS: Of the 23 studies reviewed, 15 were excluded. Of the remaining eight, data were available for meta-analysis from six studies. Of the six included studies, two compared gauze and tape with Opsite IV3000, two compared Opsite with Opsite IV3000, one compared Tegaderm with Opsite IV3000, and one compared Tegaderm with Opsite. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of any difference in the incidence of infectious complications between any of the dressing types compared in this review. Each of these comparisons was based on no more than two studies and all of these studies reported data from a small patient sample. Therefore it is unlikely that any of these comparisons would have had sufficient power to detect any differences between groups.