A schedule of gross motor development for children with Down syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Gross motor milestones for children who develop typically have been well established; however, norms for children with Down syndrome (DS) are uncertain. Without a developmental schedule for the gross motor development of children with DS, medical professionals are limited in their ability to identify if the development of a particular child with DS is delayed in comparison with his or her peers (i.e. other children with DS), assess when intervention is needed and answer the questions of parents regarding when their child can be expected to achieve developmental milestones. The objectives of this study are to: (1) provide health care professionals and early intervention providers with longitudinal data on the gross motor development of children with DS gathered prospectively; (2) contribute to the development of a definitive schedule of gross motor development for children with DS; (3) enable the identification of gross motor development that is delayed in comparison with other children with DS; and (4) help medical professionals address the questions of concerned parents who are anxious to know when their child will achieve gross motor skills such as sitting, crawling or walking. METHODS: Longitudinal data on 44 defined gross motor skills were collected on a large cohort of children with DS (n = 509) who received care at two referral centres that specialise in DS. Mastery was awarded when skills were observed directly by the physical therapist. Clinical data were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective patient clinic database and analysed. RESULTS: Specific age of mastery of gross motor skills was assessed. The mean, standard deviation and median age in months of gross motor skill achievement for children with DS, along with the 5th, 25th, 75th and 95th percentiles, are provided for birth to walking skills and post walking skills. No statistically significant gender-by-age group difference was observed in the 44 skills. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a schedule of gross motor development for children with DS derived from data collected prospectively from a large population. The gross motor development of the child with DS can be assessed based on his or her performance relative to other children with DS enabling early identification of advanced, age appropriate or delayed development, allowing for appropriate referrals for targeted intervention.

Comparison of albuterol delivered by a metered dose inhaler with spacer versus a nebulizer in children with mild acute asthma.

OBJECTIVE: In children with mild acute asthma, to compare treatment with a single dose of albuterol delivered by a metered dose inhaler (MDI) with a spacer in either a weight-adjusted high dose or a standard low-dose regimen with delivery by a nebulizer. STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized double-blind trial set in an emergency department, 90 children between 5 and 17 years of age with a baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 ) between 50% and 79% of predicted value were treated with a single dose of albuterol, either 6 to 10 puffs (n = 30) or 2 puffs (n = 30) with an MDI with spacer or 0.15 mg/kg with a nebulizer (n = 30). RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between treatment groups in the degree of improvement in percent predicted FEV1 (P =.12), clinical score, respiratory rate, or O2 saturation. However, the nebulizer group had a significantly greater change in heart rate (P =.0001). Our study had 93% power to detect a mean difference in percent predicted FEV1 of 8 between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In children with mild acute asthma, treatment with 2 puffs of albuterol by an MDI with spacer is just as clinically beneficial as treatment with higher doses delivered by an MDI or by a nebulizer.

Influenza vaccination of high-risk children: a survey of three physician groups.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the variability in physician knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours in relation to influenza vaccination of children. METHOD: A 17-item cross-sectional questionnaire, with follow-up mailings to non-responders, was mailed to a random sample of 100 family physicians and 100 community pediatricians within Metropolitan Toronto and all 130 subspecialists at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. RESULTS: Of 315 eligible physicians, 243 (77%) responded. Of the three groups, community pediatricians were more likely than either family physicians or subspecialists, to recommend vaccination for all but one of the high-risk conditions. Pediatricians (54%) were also the most likely to use active strategies to contact families of high-risk children compared with family physicians and subspecialists (both 23%). Only 44% of all physicians were themselves vaccinated against influenza. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination is recommended by most physicians; however, the responsibility for vaccination appears to fall to those in the community. Physician education plus further research and a review of provincial strategies for improving vaccination are needed.

A randomized controlled trial of penicillin vs clindamycin for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia in children.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of intravenous penicillin vs clindamycin for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A tertiary care pediatric hospital. PATIENTS: We enrolled 42 children, aged 6 months to 18 years, who were admitted to the hospital for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia. All of the children had underlying conditions that predispose to aspiration. INTERVENTION: The patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous penicillin G sodium, 250,000 U/kg every 24 hours, or intravenous clindamycin phosphate, 30 mg/kg every 24 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was "time to ready for discharge" from the hospital. RESULTS: In an effectiveness (intention to treat) analysis, the median time (interquartile range) to ready for discharge from the hospital was 4.9 days (range, 2.8-6.5 days) in the penicillin-treated group and 3.4 days (range, 2.3-6.8 days) in the clindamycin-treated group (P = .66). Results were not markedly altered when adjusted for the age difference of the groups or in the efficacy analysis (after the exclusion of 9 patients who withdrew from the trial). Rates for readmission to the hospital were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Penicillin and clindamycin seem to be equally effective for the treatment of aspiration pneumonia in children hospitalized for this illness.

Development of a clinical asthma score for use in hospitalized children between 1 and 5 years of age.

The objective of this study was to develop a clinical asthma score (CAS) for use in hospitalized children between 1 and 5 years of age. Formal approaches to item selection and reduction, reliability, discriminatory power, validity, and responsiveness were used. The final CAS consisted of five clinical characteristics: respiratory rate, wheezing, indrawing, observed dyspnea, and inspiratory-to-expiratory ratio. Interrater reliability was high (weighted kappa = 0.82), and the CAS was discriminatory (Ferguson's delta = 0.92). The CAS was valid, with a strong correlation with length of hospital stay (Spearman's correlation = 0.47, p < 0.05) and drug dosing interval (Spearman's correlation = -0.58, p < 0.01). The CAS was responsive, with a significant change in CAS from admission to discharge (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.01). This score, for use in hospitalized preschool children, is reliable, discriminatory, valid, and responsive.

Randomised trial spacer v nebuliser for acute asthma.

Sixty hospitalised children with asthma aged 1-5 years were randomised to spacer or nebuliser. A clinical score was measured at baseline and every 12 hours. There were no differences between groups in the score over time, or secondary outcome measures. The spacer is an effective delivery method for young hospitalised asthmatic children.

Do child and/or parent bereavement programs work?

Bereavement programs for children and parents are becoming popular since there are more and more neonatal intensive care programs, pediatric oncology programs and pediatric intensive care programs offering these services. This paper addresses the following question: Do bereavement programs work? An overview of the literature dating back to 1964 was undertaken. Only papers dealing with treatment were reviewed. Randomized controlled trials were selected as presenting the best evidence for or against program effectiveness. Methodologic features such as description of the sample, comparability of treatment and control groups, description of the intervention, use of objective, valid, reproducible and blinded outcome measures, sample size calculations, thoroughness of follow-up and attention to clinical as well as statistical significance were assessed. Four randomized controlled trials were found in the literature search. Two of the studies showed benefit, two did not. All four suffered significant methodologic flaws. At this time it is unclear as to whether or not bereavement programs help families. Given the high costs of health care, it is important that studies be done to determine which families are likely to benefit from bereavement programs and what type of program is effective.