{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035214255409418756, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019940602460755196, 'mean_word_length': 5.531855955678671, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Service evaluation and retrospective audit of electronic HEEADSSS (e-HEEADSSS) screening device in paediatric inpatient service in Western Australia

Abstract Objectives The top causes of adolescents’ mortality in Australia and worldwide are mostly preventable and many stem from psychosocial difficulties. The HEEADSSS screening is a widely accepted screening tool in assessing young people’s psychosocial wellbeing. This retrospective audit was done to evaluate the service implementation of an electronic-HEEADSSS (e-HEEADSSS) screening system in a regional hospital’s paediatric in-patient setting in Western Australia. The aim is to examine and compare the uptake rate of conventional HEEADSSS screening in 2018 and e-HEEADSSS screening in 2019, and to examine the relevant outcome and disclosure rate by the young person. Methods This retrospective audit (pre-post cross sectional study) is reported using the STROBE guideline. It was done over two different time frames: Pre e-HEEADSSS implementation (September–December 2018) and Post e-HEEADSSS implementation (September–December 2019). Inclusion criteria includes: All paediatric inpatients aged 12–16 years old. Exclusion criteria includes: Admission under other disciplines or clinically unstable/unsuitable patients. The uptake rate of conventional-HEEADSSS (2018) in comparison to e-HEEADSSS screening (2019) was examined. Other relevant data was extracted and analysed. Results The sample size pre-implementation was 26 while post-implementation was 24. The uptake rate increased from 12% (conventional-HEEADSSS) to 54% (e-HEEADSSS), a 450% increment with the e-HEEADSSS system implementation (Fisher Exact Test, p=0.005). More than half of young people who completed their e-HEEADSSS screening had concerns/flags which required management by the clinicians. 86% of patients in the e-HEEADSSS group with concerns/flags were acted appropriately by the treating clinicians prior to discharge. The overall disclosure rate of e-HEEADSSS was 93% with highest disclosure rate for ‘Drugs’ domain. Conclusions There is significant increase in uptake rate with high disclosure rate using e-HEEADSSS screening device when compared to conventional HEEADSSS screening in the paediatric in-patient setting. The e-HEEADSSS is a better screening tool for in-patient setting and should be implemented widely.