Parental intuition can predict child's serious illness before doctor's tests
Experts found that in about one in five cases where a child's health worsened while in hospital, parents raised concerns before doctors became aware.
Parental intuition was a better indicator of a child needing intensive care than vital readings including heart rate and abnormal breathing, the study found.
It comes after the NHS introduced Martha's Rule last year giving patients, including parents, the right to ask for a second opinion. The protocol is named after Martha Mills, who died aged 13 in 2021 from sepsis.
Martha's parents, Merope Mills and Paul Laity, raised concerns about their daughter's deteriorating health to doctors on a number of occasions after she was admitted to hospital with a pancreatic injury caused by falling off her bike.
A coroner ruled she would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs of her rapidly worsening condition and transferred her to intensive care earlier.
Data from 190,000 hospital admissions
For the new study, experts from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, analysed data from almost 190,000 emergency hospital visits.
Parents or caregivers were routinely asked: 'Are you worried your child is getting worse?'
In almost five per cent of cases, parents said they were concerned their child was deteriorating.
The research team found that this concern was 'significantly' linked to the child being admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU).
Children were found to be four times more likely to need ICU admission if parents had raised concerns, compared with children of parents who were not concerned.
Researchers also found that parental concern was associated with a higher likelihood that the child would need mechanical ventilation or to be given help to breathe.
Parents could prompt earlier treatment
The study, published in the journal Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, also found that 'caregiver concern was more strongly associated with ICU admission than any abnormal vital sign', including abnormal heart rate, abnormal breathing or blood pressure.
There were 1,900 cases where parental concern was documented along with the timing of abnormal vital signs.
The research team noted that in almost one in five cases parents raised concerns about deterioration before vital signs indicated that the child was deteriorating.
They added that this could mean that taking parents' views into account could lead to earlier treatment.
'Parents are the experts'
Overall, they found that the children of caregivers who voiced concerns were 'more unwell, they were more likely to be admitted to an inpatient ward, and stayed in hospital almost three times as long'.
Dr Erin Mills, a lead author from Monash University, said: 'We know that parents are the experts in their children, but stories of parents not being heard, followed by devastating outcomes, are all too common. We wanted to change that.'
She said: 'We wanted to test whether parent input could help us identify deterioration earlier – and it can.
'If a parent said they were worried, their child was around four times more likely to require intensive care. That's a signal we can't afford to ignore
'Parents are not visitors – they are part of the care team. We want every hospital to recognise that and give parents permission, and power, to speak up.'
In March the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee was told that thousands of patients or their loved ones have sought a second opinion about their NHS care under Martha's Rule.
More than 100 patients have been taken to intensive care 'or equivalent' as a result.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
20 minutes ago
- The Sun
My blood pressure has been flagged as pre-diabetic – what should I do?
OUR resident specialist and NHS GP, Dr Zoe Williams, shares her expert advice. Today, Dr Zoe helps a reader whose blood pressure was flagged as pointing to pre diabetic levels during a routine health check. 2 Q) I RECENTLY had my free health check and my blood pressure was flagged as pointing to pre-diabetic levels. The high number was 126, and the lower number was 86. My health practice advised me to take statins. Could they help? Any other advice? A) IT is great to hear that you had your health check. They are so important because they help you identify silent but dangerous issues with your blood pressure, blood sugar or cholesterol levels. Your blood pressure results seem OK, but it would be a good idea to still look at measures to prevent it getting any higher. Being pre-diabetic relates to a higher-than- normal level of sugar, or glucose, in the blood. It should be taken as a warning sign that you need to make some lifestyle changes. Aim for 150 minutes of moderate exercise a week and eat a healthy and balanced diet, focusing on limiting ultra-processed foods, alcohol and sugary drinks. If you're a smoker, seek support to quit. Statins are medicines used to treat high cholesterol levels and, in doing so, reduce your risk of developing a heart attack or stroke in the future. The good news, though, is that the same lifestyle changes that will help bring down your blood sugar and blood pressure will also help your cholesterol too, and might mean you don't need to take statins.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trumpet of Patriots hack: calls for political parties to be forced to report data breaches
More than two years before the data breach of Clive Palmer's Trumpet of Patriots and United Australia parties, the federal government was warned that there was a significant risk to political parties – which are exempt from many data protection obligations – holding sensitive information on voters. The ransomware attack on Trumpet of Patriots earlier this month was the first time Australians became aware of a major data breach of any political party. It only became public information because the party decided to report it. The attack also affected the United Australia party. Supporters were told that data obtained in the attack could include email addresses, phone numbers, identity records, banking records, employment history, and other documents, but that the party was unsure of the amount of information compromised. It is unclear whether Palmer's political parties were required to publicly report the breaches at all. Under the Australian Privacy Act, political parties are exempt from reporting on data breaches and many of the obligations under the act that govern how personal information must be handled. The United Australia party was deregistered at the time of the attack, meaning the exemption it previously held may no longer apply, but the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner could not comment on whether that was the case. Sign up: AU Breaking News email A 2022 attorney general's department report on privacy law reform highlighted that the broad political party exemption was a growing risk, as political parties potentially hold vast amounts of sensitive data including profiling on people to target in the electorate. The report found 'almost all' of the submissions to its inquiry said the exemption was not justifiable and should be narrowed or removed, and the inquiry heard there was 'no clear reason why parties should not be accountable for keeping personal information secure'. The policy thinktank Reset Australia warned in its submission that malicious actors could exploit the weaknesses in party security to interfere in democratic processes. The attorney general's department recommended a narrowing of the exemption for political parties, including requiring parties to protect personal information, take reasonable steps to destroy personal information when no longer needed and comply with the notifiable data breach scheme to report a breach when it happens. Tom Sulston, head of policy at Digital Rights Watch, said the Trumpet of Patriots breach was a 'clear demonstration that it is no longer acceptable for political parties to enjoy an exemption from Australia's Privacy Act'. 'Political parties not only have privileged access to the electoral roll and thereby the personal information of all voters, but also, through their memberships and organising systems, data about our political beliefs and demographics,' he said. The information obtained by parties was very valuable, he said, and could be dangerous for those who were profiled by the parties. 'Most political parties … do take seriously their responsibilities to look after our data: the federal government regularly distributes grants to parties to help them secure their systems,' he said. 'So the good news is that removing their exemption from the Privacy Act won't actually cause them a huge amount of effort or trouble.' Sulston said removing the exemption would ensure people were informed if their data was lost, and those people could then seek legal or financial remedies. 'That's much more robust than relying on parties' goodwill or desire to avoid bad publicity.' Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion When the Albanese government responded to the Privacy Act review report in 2023, it agreed with many of the other recommendations in the report, but the political exemption recommendations were merely 'noted', and the first tranche of privacy changes passed in the last parliament did not include a change to the political exemption. The privacy commissioner, Carly Kind, said it was worth assessing whether political parties should keep the exemption. 'As the Australian community reels from successive breaches of their personal information, it is worth querying whether it is appropriate that political parties enjoy an exemption from privacy law,' she said. 'The exemption is not only out of step with community expectations, it is not reflective of the nature and scope of risks to Australians' privacy in the digital era.' Kind said the community wanted more, not less, privacy protection. 'With each new data breach we are reminded of the need for Australian organisations and agencies to continue to uplift their privacy and cybersecurity practices.' Sulston said the government's response to the attorney general's deparment's recommendations was 'profoundly inadequate'. 'Reporting of breaches is a bare minimum that we should expect of organisations that hold our data,' he said. 'The government should make good use of their majority to push through the second tranche of privacy reforms, and include removing the parties' exemptions.' The attorney general, Michelle Rowland, told Sky News on Sunday that a second tranche would focus on privacy in relation to online platforms like Google, Facebook and Instagram, stating Australians are 'sick and tired of their personal information not only being exploited for benefit by third parties, but also the way in which that information is not being protected'. A spokesperson for Rowland would not confirm whether changes to the political party exemption would feature in the second tranche of legislation. 'The government will continue work on a further tranche of reforms, to ensure Australia's privacy laws are fit for purpose in the digital age,' they said. Trumpet of Patriots was contacted for comment.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
If the economics of broadening or lifting Australia's GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous
When Jim Chalmers declared we needed a national debate on reforming the economy to drive the next generation of prosperity, he scolded the media for its penchant for playing the rule-in-rule-out game. The irony is that from his high horse, the treasurer had almost certainly ruled out one major change: lifting or broadening the GST. If Chalmers is being disingenuous when he suggests nothing is off the table at next month's talkfest – and he absolutely is – then he should have ruled out changes to the consumption tax from the very start. Many economists argue that lifting or broadening the GST is an essential ingredient in any reform package that fundamentally improves the efficiency of the tax system. More GST revenue can pay for cuts to income and company tax rates, for example. This shift provides a structurally more stable tax revenue base, and sharpens incentives to work and invest. Labor as a party, however, is fundamentally opposed to changing the tax on consumption on the basis that it hurts poorer Australians. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the worry about fairness is real. New analysis by the ANU's Ben Phillips shows that the GST is 'highly regressive'. Phillips' modelling shows the bottom fifth of income earners pay 5.4% of their income on consumption taxes. That's more than twice as much as the top 20% of households, where GST accounts for 2.6% of disposable income. Broadening the GST to include the things currently excluded – such as fresh food and education – makes the tax even more regressive. Phillips finds consumption taxes as a share of household budgets climbs to 7.9% for the lowest incomes, and 3.5% for those at the top. 'I think equity concerns are spot on,' Phillips says. 'There would have to be a complicated new approach to compensation for lower and middle income workers to make it politically feasible. 'We would be relying on there being some substantial economic gains from increasing the GST, and they are probably relatively modest.' If the economics of broadening or lifting the GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous. The first hurdle is the most obvious: the states get the revenue, while the commonwealth cops the heat. Even if the Albanese government could agree with its state and territory counterparts to share the proceeds, there is also the issue that the GST distribution system has been fundamentally undermined by the obscenely generous deal with Western Australia, the country's richest state. As such, a bigger GST pile without getting rid of this distortion would simply exacerbate what Saul Eslake has called 'possibly the worst public policy decision of the 21st century'. Which begs the question: can we get meaningful tax reform without lifting the GST? Ken Henry, who authored a major tax paper in 2010 and is considered the country's high priest of reform, argues that 'tax reform cannot be done piecemeal; a big package will be required'. He recently told The Conversation's Michelle Grattan 'it would be better not to constrain the reform process by ruling out the GST'. 'Having said that, I do think it's possible to achieve major reform of the Australian taxation system without necessarily increasing the rate or extending the base of the GST.' Such reforms could be paid for via higher taxes on natural resources, and on wealth and savings – both on capital gains and income from that capital (think property investments and superannuation). Chalmers' narrative for the reform roundtable apparently leans into Henry's view around some kind of tax 'grand bargain'. But again, the treasurer's ambition is much more narrow. He has famously described his approach to reform as 'bite-sized chunks', and defended his policy initiatives since coming to power as 'modest but meaningful'. In fact, the most obvious next steps for Labor when it comes to tax is reforming the treatment of family trusts, and introducing a road user charge to replace dwindling fuel excise revenue. Whether we need another roundtable to get there is an open question. Viva Hammer, who played a key role in designing America's immense Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, had some advice for policymakers. Speaking at a tax roundtable organised by the independent MP Allegra Spender, Hammer said the ambition should be 'to think about doing something better, and not something perfect, because perfection is for the angels'. Breaking it down to the lowest common denominator, the independent economist Chris Richardson's advice is 'let's just stop doing dumb things'. Speaking at the same event in Parliament House on Friday, Richardson said his number one 'dumb thing' is how we tax gas through the petroleum rent resources tax (PRRT). Australia over recent years has become a gas superpower. And yet, incredibly, the tax take has not changed at all, Richardson says. Labor's tweaks to the PRRT have not changed this reality – as Richardson says, the forecasts for revenue from this tax are a 'big fat nothing' in future years. 'Some people say you can't change because there would be some 'sovereign risk',' he said, referring to the claims that altering these rules puts off foreign investors and can choke off funding for the industry. 'Sovereign risk is where one side gets next to nothing across a long period of time, and our own stupidity has got us there, and we should do better.' Richardson believes we are also not charging banks enough for the implicit 'too big to fail' insurance provided by taxpayers. The two suggestions, he said, could raise $5-6bn a year.
