You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
A regional audit of high-flow nasal cannula therapy use for bronchiolitis in London district general hospitals
  1. Andrew J Jones1,
  2. Satheesh Mathew2,
  3. Shye-Wei Wong3,
  4. Meena Patel4,
  5. Amanda Equi5,
  6. Seema Sukhani5,
  7. Sharmila Nambiar6,
  8. Padmanabhan Ramnarayan1
  1. 1 Children's Acute Transport Service, London, UK
  2. 2 Newham University Hospital, London, UK
  3. 3 Department of Paediatrics, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
  4. 4 Homerton University Hospital, London, UK
  5. 5 Department of Paediatrics, Watford General Hospital, Watford, UK
  6. 6 Department of Paediatrics, Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Andrew J Jones, Children's Acute Transport Service, 26-27 Boswell Street, Holborn, London WC1N 3JZ, UK; andrewjones7{at}nhs.net

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-312462

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends the use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for children with impending respiratory failure due to bronchiolitis.1 Anecdotal reports, however, suggest that high flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) is becoming a popular alternative. Two recent systematic reviews, based mainly on observational studies, conclude that there is insufficient evidence at present to determine the effectiveness of HFNC in bronchiolitis.2 ,3

    During winter 2014/2015, we conducted a regional audit to determine adherence to NICE guidance relating to the provision of respiratory support for bronchiolitic infants.

    During a 3-month period (November–January), a convenience sample of district general hospitals …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

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