Compliance With American Academy of Pediatrics and American Public Health Association Illness Exclusion Guidelines for Child Care Centers in Maryland: Who Follows Them and When?

Author:

Copeland Kristen A.1,Harris Emily N.2,Wang Nae-Yuh3,Cheng Tina L.4

Affiliation:

1. Division of General and Community Pediatrics Research, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, and Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio

2. Housestaff Department, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

3. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

4. Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Abstract

BACKGROUND. In 1992, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association jointly published guidelines for temporary exclusion of sick children from child care. However, little is known about key stakeholders' compliance with these guidelines. OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this work was to compare pediatricians', parents', and child care providers' compliance with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines and determine predictors for higher rates of compliance. METHODS. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 215 randomly selected Maryland pediatricians, 223 parents, and 192 child care providers from 22 Baltimore, Maryland, child care centers from January to July 2004. Questionnaires contained the following 6 case vignettes depicting common child care illnesses: upper respiratory infection, conjunctivitis, gastroenteritis, mild febrile illness, tinea capitis, and atopic dermatitis. The instrument measured the correctness of exclusion and inclusion decisions (using American Academy of Pediatrics/American Public Health Association guidelines as gold standard) according to varying levels of fever, disease severity (eg, clear versus yellow eye discharge), familiarity with the child, and parent work schedule flexibility. RESULTS. Response rates were 71% for pediatricians, 56% for parents, and 85% for child care providers. Guideline compliance was higher for pediatricians (74%) than for child care providers (60%) and parents (61%). Only 23% of pediatricians and parents and 29% of child care providers reported familiarity with American Academy of Pediatrics/American Public Health Association guidelines by name. In general, child care providers and parents had lower false-negative rates (allowed fewer children to attend who met criteria for exclusion) than pediatricians, suggesting that pediatricians may underexclude. Child care providers and parents correctly excluded in 65%–98% of cases requiring exclusion, whereas pediatricians correctly excluded 31%–86% of cases requiring exclusion, depending on the vignette. Yet pediatricians were much more specific about which children met criteria (pediatricians correctly included 61%–93% of cases requiring inclusion versus child care providers and parents who correctly included 20%–75% of such cases), suggesting that child care providers and parents may overexclude. Compliance rates varied significantly by stakeholder, vignette (disease), level of fever, and disease severity but did not vary with the stakeholder's familiarity with the child or the flexibility of the parent's work schedule. CONCLUSIONS. Pediatricians, parents, and child care providers were unfamiliar with American Academy of Pediatrics/American Public Health Association illness exclusion guidelines by name but moderately compliant with them. When noncompliant, child care providers and parents generally overexcluded, and pediatricians underexcluded. Stakeholder- and disease-specific predictors for noncompliance gleaned from this study suggest how educational interventions aiming to increase guideline compliance could be individually tailored to child care providers, parents, and pediatricians.

Publisher

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Subject

Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3