G181(P) EVALUATION OF A NEW E-HEALTH INTERVENTION IN NEONATAL CARE: PERSPECTIVES OF PARENTS AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 1 C King, 1 S Kerr, 2 R Hogg, 1 KE McPherson, 3 J Hanley, 4 M Brierton, 4 S Ainsworth. 1 Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK; 2 Research and Development, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK; 3 School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK; 4 Neonatal Unit, NHS Fife, Kirkcaldy, UK 10.1136/archdischild-2016-310863.172 Aim This paper will report findings from the first phase of an evaluation of a new e-health intervention designed to allow mothers to ‘see’ their baby in neonatal care (NNU) when they are not able to be with them. The intervention, MyLittleOne, involves a web-camera being placed over the incubator in NNU, which transmits a real-time video wirelessly to a coupled tablet device at the mother’s bedside. Guided by the MRC Framework for the Development and Evaluation of Healthcare Interventions (MRC, 2008), the aim was to explore parent and professional views of the technology and make recommendations for its future development, use and evaluation. Methods A qualitative approach was adopted, guided by a crit- ical realist perspective (McEvoy and Richards, 2003). The study took place in a Level 3 NNU in Scotland. Partici- pants were recruited purposively and included parents (n = 33) and a range of health professionals working in neonatal and postnatal care (n = 21). The data were collected during semi-structured individual, paired and small group interviews and were analysed themati- cally using NVivo v10. Results The majority of parents and professionals spoke posi- tively about MyLittleOne. Perceptions were that: use of the tech- nology assisted bonding and responsiveness; it promoted the recovery process following birth; and, for mothers who wished to breast-feed, being able to see their baby on the tablet device encouraged the ‘let-down’ reflex. An additional benefit was that siblings and others who may not be able to visit the NNU were able to see the baby. In contrast, for a small number of mothers, viewing their baby remotely appeared to increase their levels of anxiety. Switching off the camera during a medical procedure and back on after the procedure was completed was found to be problematic, at times and in different ways, for both parents and professionals. Conclusions Findings from this preliminary evaluation will guide future developments of the technology, including its use in fam- ily homes following the mother’s discharge. The findings will also inform the design of a feasibility study and subsequent RCT to assess the impact of MyLittleOne on a range of psychological indicators of postnatal adjustment. G182(P) THE BIG QUESTION: IS DOCUMENTATION OF X-RAYS IN THE PAEDIATRIC DEPARTMENT UP TO STANDARD? K Oyedokun, S Chakrabarti, D Padi. Ormskirk and District General Hospital, Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust, Ormskirk, UK 10.1136/archdischild-2016-310863.173 Background Proper documentation in medical record is an essential component of quality care and a legal requirement for all medical practitioners 1 . This audit was designed following learning from a case of missed non-accidental injury in which documentation of X-ray review fall short of the standard set by Royal College of Radiologist (RCR) 2 . Aim To determine if documentation of X-ray review in the paediatric department is up to the required standard. Methods We audited two months’ period of activities in Paediat- rics department against 3 RCR 2 standards (see Table 1). A spe- cially designed form was used to collect data from the electronic medical records and radiology system of all in-patients who had plain X-ray between July and August 2015. Results Forty-nine patients’ medical notes were reviewed. One in 5 of x-ray had no documentation of review in medical notes. One in 5 of X-ray requested from neonatal unit and 3 in 10 of those requested from the children ward have no documen- tation of review. Out of the 39 patients who had documentation of their X-ray review, 51% had first review within 4 h and 62% within 24 h of imaging. The time of documentation was not specified in about a third (31%) of the sample. Forty-seven percent had their final report 2–4 weeks after imaging but 4% did not have a formal report of their X-rays. Abstract G182(P) Table 1 2 month audited activities in Paediatrics department against 3 RCR 2 standards Audit Criteria Standard Expected Standard Achieved Every imaging investigation must be reported within an agreed time by an individual qualified to interpret that particular investigation 100% 80% All imaging investigations must be accompanied by a formal permanently written recorded written report 100% 96% All practitioners who interpret imaging investigations must identify their name, status and position when making a written record of an imaging investigation 100% 85% Conclusion Failure to document X-ray review in 20% of the sample fall short of standard. The average time lag of 2–4 weeks between imaging and radiologist report makes documentation of X-ray review more paramount. Also important is accurate docu- mentation of time of X-ray review including name and status of reviewer. G183(P) CARE AT HOME: GENERAL PRACTITIONER TO CHILDREN’S NURSE REFERRAL PATHWAY IMPROVES OUTCOMES S Mariguddi, S Roberts. Paediatrics, Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust, Ormskirk, UK 10.1136/archdischild-2016-310863.174 Aims The aim of this project was to initiate a new referral path- way from General Practitioner (GP) to children’s community nursing team for a select group of paediatric patients, and deter- mine whether this reduced hospital admissions and achieved high family satisfaction. Methods A children’s community nursing team had been estab- lished in this district general hospital to reduce non elective admissions and length of stay. This project was developed to reduce hospital admissions further by having nurses take direct referrals from GPs for a select group of paediatric illnesses where the reason for referral to paediatrics was primarily for Abstracts archdischild 2016;101(Suppl 1):A1–A374 A95