Determining the sensory needs of children with Hunter and Sanfilippo syndromes who need hospital treatment
Evidence & Practice Previous     Next

Determining the sensory needs of children with Hunter and Sanfilippo syndromes who need hospital treatment

Andrea Page Associate professor, learning disability and mental health department, Birmingham City University, West Midlands, England
Charlotte Gayson Associate psychologist, Studio III Clinical Services, Minerva Mill Innovation Centre, Alcester, Warwickshire, England
Nicola Vanes Clinical manager and lead nurse, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)/Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, West Midlands, England
Paul Ashmore Ward manager and senior research charge nurse, NIHR/Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Birmingham Children’s Hospital, West Midlands, England
Andrew McDonnell Consultant clinical psychologist and director, Studio III Clinical Services, Minerva Mill Innovation Centre, Alcester, Warwickshire, England

Background Children with a learning disability may process sensory information differently to their peers. They may display behaviours of concern when there is an increase in stress levels due to a hospital visit.

Aim To explore parents’ perceptions of using a stress sensory preferences interview and recommendations evaluation (SsPIRE) to elicit information about their child’s sensory needs to improve their hospital stay as well as reduce behaviours of concern.

Method Five semi-structured interviews took place with parents of children with Hunter or Sanfilippo syndromes. Thematic analysis was used.

Findings Three common themes were generated: person-centred planning, confidence and interview amendments.

Conclusion Parents reported that SsPIRE assists in improving the care given to their child in hospital and their own confidence in healthcare staff to manage their child’s behaviours.

Learning Disability Practice. 20, 2, 17-21. doi: 10.7748/ldp.2017.e1790

Correspondence

andrea.page@bcu.ac.uk

Peer review

This article has been subject to double-blind review and checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Received: 02 August 2016

Accepted: 30 January 2017