Menu

rss
Arch Dis Child doi:10.1136/archdischild-2012-301835
  • Short report

Opportunistic adolescent health screening of surgical inpatients

  1. Andrew Kennedy1
  1. 1Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Princess Margaret Hospital, Perth, Australia
  2. 2School of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Andrew Kennedy, Department of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Princess Margaret Hospital, Roberts Road, Subiaco WA 6008, Australia; andrew.kennedy{at}health.wa.gov.au

  1. Contributors AK and HW developed the idea for the study and, with NP and PS, designed the screening document. AK and NB performed the analysis of the data. NB and DP wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors contributed to revising and commenting on subsequent drafts and approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Accepted 9 May 2012
  • Published Online First 4 July 2012

Abstract

Purpose Opportunistic health screening has long been promoted by advocates of adolescent health. However, there are few objective data documenting the outcomes in an inpatient setting.

Methods The authors performed opportunistic health screening on 114 surgical inpatients, median age 14 (range 10–18) years, admitted to a general adolescent ward in a tertiary children's hospital. A four-page paper document with a formatted list of questions, based on the Home, Education, Activities, Drugs, Sexual Health, Suicide framework, was developed to standardise screening and documentation.

Results Areas of concern requiring intervention were identified in 34 (30%) patients. Specific interventions included referrals to the Adolescent Medicine clinic (n=6), Hospital School Services (n=7) and Psychological Medicine (n=7).

Conclusions Consideration should be given to offer adolescent health screening to all surgical inpatients. Further research should involve the participation of young people and should focus on the outcomes, feasibility, acceptability and resource implications of such screening.

Footnotes

  • Collaborators Sam Fazio.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was granted by the Princess Margaret Hospital Ethics Committee, ref 375QP.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.