PCF responds to consultation on draft quality standard for constipation in children and young people

January 13, 2014 in Consultations by Whitehouse

The Paediatric Continence Forum has responded to a consultation by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on the draft quality standard for constipation in children and young people.

The draft quality standard contains five quality statements outlined below:

  1. Children and young people with constipation receive a full assessment  before a diagnosis of idiopathic constipation is made.
  2. Children and young people with idiopathic constipation (where there is no clear reason why the child is constipated) receive oral macrogols (laxatives) as first-line treatment.
  3. Children and young people with idiopathic constipation undergoing laxative treatment have their treatment reviewed by a healthcare professional.
  4. Children and young people with idiopathic constipation undergoing laxative treatment receive a written personalised management plan.
  5. Children and young people with idiopathic constipation who do not respond to initial treatment within 3 months are referred to a specialist.

The consultation is seeking feedback on the five quality statements outlined above, and is seeking responses on five questions. Of the five, there are two general questions about the statements:

  1. Does this draft quality standard accurately reflect the key areas for quality improvement?
  2. If the systems and structures were available, do you think it would be possible to collect the data for the proposed quality measures?

The consultation is seeking feedback on the five quality statements outlined above, and is seeking responses on five questions. Of the five, there are two general questions about the statements:

  1. Does this draft quality standard accurately reflect the key areas for quality improvement?
  2. If the systems and structures were available, do you think it would be possible to collect the data for the proposed quality measures?

The other three questions relate to specific statements:

  1. For quality statement 3: Is one review type often carried out better than the other or do both types of treatment review need equal levels of improvement?
  2. For draft quality statement 4: What is the most important piece of information that should be provided as part of a written personalised management plan?
  3. For draft quality statement 5: Is it clear what ‘respond to initial treatment’ means?

To view the PCF’s submission, please click here.