Richard John England1, Bala Eradi2, Govind V Murthi3, Jonathan Sutcliffe4. 1. Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK. r.england@doctors.org.uk. 2. Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK. 3. Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield, UK. 4. Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Screening investigations for the vertebral, anorectal, cardiac, tracheo-oesophageal, renal and limb (VACTERL) association form an important part of the management of neonates with anorectal malformations (ARMs). We developed a proforma to define investigations and indications for referral. The aim of the current study was to determine if the proforma could improve screening rigour. METHODS: Four centres performed a 3-year retrospective audit of neonates with ARM. Following introduction of a proforma, the same data were collected prospectively for consecutive neonates over a further 2 years. The appropriate investigation of each component of the VACTERL association and the corresponding referral required for each abnormal result were defined. The proportion of patients undergoing appropriate investigation and referral was compared against these standards. An audit standard of 90% was set for each criteria. RESULTS: Prior to implementation of the proforma, 86 patients were audited, with a further 69 patients after. The audit standard was met in 7 criteria before introduction of the proforma in comparison to 10 criteria afterwards. CONCLUSION: The completeness of VACTERL screening and its documentation improved following introduction of the proforma. Performance remains imperfect. Review of specific criteria (such as definition of vertebral body screening) will help address this.
PURPOSE: Screening investigations for the vertebral, anorectal, cardiac, tracheo-oesophageal, renal and limb (VACTERL) association form an important part of the management of neonates with anorectal malformations (ARMs). We developed a proforma to define investigations and indications for referral. The aim of the current study was to determine if the proforma could improve screening rigour. METHODS: Four centres performed a 3-year retrospective audit of neonates with ARM. Following introduction of a proforma, the same data were collected prospectively for consecutive neonates over a further 2 years. The appropriate investigation of each component of the VACTERL association and the corresponding referral required for each abnormal result were defined. The proportion of patients undergoing appropriate investigation and referral was compared against these standards. An audit standard of 90% was set for each criteria. RESULTS: Prior to implementation of the proforma, 86 patients were audited, with a further 69 patients after. The audit standard was met in 7 criteria before introduction of the proforma in comparison to 10 criteria afterwards. CONCLUSION: The completeness of VACTERL screening and its documentation improved following introduction of the proforma. Performance remains imperfect. Review of specific criteria (such as definition of vertebral body screening) will help address this.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anorectal malformations; Imperforate anus; Screening; VACTERL association
Authors: Ahmed Nasr; Patrick J McNamara; Luc Mertens; David Levin; Andrew James; Helen Holtby; Jacob C Langer Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Benjamin D Solomon; Linda A Baker; Kelly A Bear; Bridget K Cunningham; Philip F Giampietro; Colleen Hadigan; Donald W Hadley; Steven Harrison; Marc A Levitt; Nickie Niforatos; Scott M Paul; Cathleen Raggio; Heiko Reutter; Nicole Warren-Mora Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Scott J Keckler; Shawn D St Peter; Patricia A Valusek; Kuojen Tsao; Charles L Snyder; George W Holcomb; Daniel J Ostlie Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Michael D Rollins; Katie Russell; Kathy Schall; Sarah Zobell; Ramon F Castillo; Lesley Eldridge; Eric R Scaife; Douglas C Barnhart Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 2.545