Premium
What do paediatricians think of the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit?
Author(s) -
He Suwen,
Zurynski Yvonne A,
Elliott Elizabeth J
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of paediatrics and child health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.631
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1440-1754
pISSN - 1034-4810
DOI - 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2010.01755.x
Subject(s) - medicine , phone , unit (ring theory) , family medicine , medical education , philosophy , linguistics , mathematics education , mathematics
Aim: To explore clinicians' perceptions of the value, usefulness and limitations of the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit (APSU) and obtain direct feedback regarding the surveillance mechanism and suggestions for improvement. Methods: Anonymous postal survey of Australian paediatricians ( n = 1260) in 2007. Results: Of 1260 clinicians surveyed 818 (65%) responded, a similar proportion from all states/territories and specialties. Over half had participated in surveillance for >10 years. The majority (95%), believe APSU research is valuable, for generating knowledge (81%), identifying research needs (78%), facilitating collaborative research (75%), supporting education and advocacy (74%), guiding clinical practice (70%), informing future policy (70%) and evaluating current policy (68%). Of 458 respondents who had ever reported a case (90%) had no objection to providing de‐identified clinical information; and about 75% said questionnaires were easy to complete; however, one third said clinical information requested was not always readily available. Most (680, 83%) respondents believed their contribution to the APSU was appropriately acknowledged and 20% said they had personally benefited from participation. The majority (90%) were willing to report immediately by email/fax/phone in an epidemiological emergency. Lack of time and resources was the most common limitation to participation identified by clinicians: some suggested on‐line reporting would improve the ease and timeliness of reporting. Clinicians also suggested better use of the APSU website to disseminate results. Conclusion: Clinicians acknowledged the APSU as valuable. Improving communication with clinicians, ensuring that information requested in questionnaires is relevant and available, and developing a secure web‐based reporting system are future APSU priorities.