The Distraction in Action Tool©: Feasibility and Usability in Clinical Settings.
Kirsten Hanrahan, Charmaine Kleiber, Ben J Miller and 2 others
PMID 29132876WHAT IT FOUND
Parents and clinicians found the distraction tool usable during children's needle procedures, and clinicians rated the distress predictions helpful.
It shows feasibility, not that distraction reduces distress.
Key findings
01Twenty guardians of children having venipunctures participated; five parents provided distraction and 15 asked for a professional coach.
02Nineteen parents completed the evaluation quickly, and most had a positive experience with the tool.
03Clinicians reported both distress predictions were helpful and that workflow changes did not cause meaningful delays.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 20 guardians and their children participated, and clinicians were involved in only 13 of the 20 procedures, so the findings are limited. The study was designed to test feasibility and usability, not to test whether distress was reduced. Three parents said using the tool was difficult, but did not explain why or how to make it easier. Enrollment was difficult in the emergency department because encounters are unplanned and the research assistant was often not present to consent parents. The sample size was not adequate to examine the influence of the situation, and generalizability is limited. Qualitative themes describe parent and clinician experiences, not measured treatment effects.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the tool reduces children's distress. This pilot tested whether parents and clinicians could use it; it was not a test of whether distress was reduced.