Overcoming New Hire Obstacles with an Individualized RN Orientation in the Critical Care Area

To improve RN new hire orientation in the Cardiac Care Unit (CCU). Research reveals we tend to assign two patients to a new hire too early. They may not be able to safely care for two acutely ill patients, causing both the new hire and preceptor to become frustrated.https://digitalcommons.centracare.com/nursing_posters/1102/thumbnail.jp

Mother's and children's ADHD genetic risk, household chaos and children's ADHD symptoms:A gene–environment correlation study

BACKGROUND: Chaotic home environments may contribute to children's attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms. However, ADHD genetic risk may also influence household chaos. This study investigated whether children in chaotic households had more ADHD symptoms, if mothers and children with higher ADHD genetic risk lived in more chaotic households, and the joint association of genetic risk and household chaos on the longitudinal course of ADHD symptoms across childhood. METHODS: Participants were mothers and children from the Environmental Risk (E‐Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study, a UK population‐representative birth cohort of 2,232 twins. Children's ADHD symptoms were assessed at ages 5, 7, 10 and 12 years. Household chaos was rated by research workers at ages 7, 10 and 12, and by mother's and twin's self‐report at age 12. Genome‐wide ADHD polygenic risk scores (PRS) were calculated for mothers (n = 880) and twins (n = 1,999); of these, n = 871 mothers and n = 1,925 children had information on children's ADHD and household chaos. RESULTS: Children in more chaotic households had higher ADHD symptoms. Mothers and children with higher ADHD PRS lived in more chaotic households. Children's ADHD PRS was associated with household chaos over and above mother's PRS, suggesting evocative gene–environment correlation. Children in more chaotic households had higher baseline ADHD symptoms and a slower rate of decline in symptoms. However, sensitivity analyses estimated that gene–environment correlation accounted for a large proportion of the association of household chaos on ADHD symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Children's ADHD genetic risk was independently associated with higher levels of household chaos, emphasising the active role of children in shaping their home environment. Our findings suggest that household chaos partly reflects children's genetic risk for ADHD, calling into question whether household chaos directly influences children's core ADHD symptoms. Our findings highlight the importance of considering parent and child genetic risk in relation to apparent environmental exposures

A meta-analysis of genetic effects associated with neurodevelopmental disorders and co-occurring conditions

A systematic understanding of the aetiology of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) and their co-occurrence with other conditions during childhood and adolescence remains incomplete. In the current meta-analysis, we synthesized the literature on (1) the contribution of genetic and environmental factors to NDDs, (2) the genetic and environmental overlap between different NDDs, and (3) the co-occurrence between NDDs and disruptive, impulse control and conduct disorders (DICCs). Searches were conducted across three platforms: Web of Science, Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase. Studies were included only if 75% or more of the sample consisted of children and/or adolescents and the studies had measured the aetiology of NDDs and DICCs using single-generation family designs or genomic methods. Studies that had selected participants on the basis of unrelated diagnoses or injuries were excluded. We performed multilevel, random-effects meta-analyses on 296 independent studies, including over four million (partly overlapping) individuals. We further explored developmental trajectories and the moderating roles of gender, measurement, geography and ancestry. We found all NDDs to be substantially heritable (family-based heritability, 0.66 (s.e. = 0.03); SNP heritability, 0.19 (s.e. = 0.03)). Meta-analytic genetic correlations between NDDs were moderate (grand family-based genetic correlation, 0.36 (s.e. = 0.12); grand SNP-based genetic correlation, 0.39 (s.e. = 0.19)) but differed substantially between pairs of disorders. The genetic overlap between NDDs and DICCs was strong (grand family-based genetic correlation, 0.62 (s.e. = 0.20)). While our work provides evidence to inform and potentially guide clinical and educational diagnostic procedures and practice, it also highlights the imbalance in the research effort that has characterized developmental genetics research

Polygenic risk and the course of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder from childhood to young adulthood:Findings from a nationally representative cohort

OBJECTIVE: To understand whether genetic risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with the course of the disorder across childhood and into young adulthood. METHOD: Participants were from the Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study, a population-based birth cohort of 2,232 twins. ADHD was assessed at ages 5, 7, 10, and 12 with mother- and teacher-reports and at age 18 with self-report. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) were created using a genome-wide association study of ADHD case status. Associations with PRS were examined at multiple points in childhood and longitudinally from early childhood to adolescence. We investigated ADHD PRS and course to young adulthood, as reflected by ADHD remission, persistence, and late onset. RESULTS: Participants with higher ADHD PRSs had increased risk for meeting ADHD diagnostic criteria (odds ratios ranging from 1.17 at age 10 to 1.54 at age 12) and for elevated symptoms at ages 5, 7, 10, and 12. Higher PRS was longitudinally associated with more hyperactivity/impulsivity (incidence rate ratio = 1.18) and inattention (incidence rate ratio = 1.14) from age 5 to age 12. In young adulthood, participants with persistent ADHD exhibited the highest PRS (mean PRS = 0.37), followed by participants with remission (mean PRS = 0.21); both groups had higher PRS than controls (mean PRS = −0.03), but did not significantly differ from one another. Participants with late-onset ADHD did not show elevated PRS for ADHD, depression, alcohol dependence, or marijuana use disorder. CONCLUSION: Genetic risk scores derived from case-control genome-wide association studies may have relevance not only for incidence of mental health disorders, but also for understanding the longitudinal course of mental health disorders

Safety and effectiveness of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of gastrointestinal cancer in adults without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between low-dose aspirin and the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), gastric cancer (GC), oesophageal cancer (EC) and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in adults without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. DESIGN: Cohort study with propensity score matching of new-users of aspirin to non-users. SETTING: Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System database, Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: Adults ≥40 years with a prescription start date of either low-dose aspirin (75-300 mg/daily) or paracetamol (non-aspirin users) between 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008 without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the first diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer (either CRC, GC or EC) and the secondary outcome was GIB. Individuals were followed from index date of prescription until the earliest occurrence of an outcome of interest, an incident diagnosis of any type of cancer besides the outcome, death or until 31 December 2017. A competing risk survival analysis was used to estimate HRs and 95% CIs with death as the competing risk. RESULTS: After matching, 49 679 aspirin and non-aspirin users were included. The median (IQR) follow-up was 10.0 (6.4) years. HRs for low-dose aspirin compared with non-aspirin users were 0.83 for CRC (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91), 0.77 for GC (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92) and 0.88 for EC (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.16). Patients prescribed low-dose aspirin had an increased risk of GIB (HR 1.15, 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.20), except for patients prescribed proton pump inhibitors or histamine H2-receptor antagonists (HR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.10). CONCLUSION: In this cohort study of Chinese adults, patients prescribed low-dose aspirin had reduced risks of CRC and GC and an increased risk of GIB. Among the subgroup of patients prescribed gastroprotective agents at baseline, however, the association with GIB was attenuated

A risk calculator to predict adult Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity disorder::Generation and external validation in three birth cohorts and one clinical sample.

AimFew personalised medicine investigations have been conducted for mental health. We aimed to generate and validate a risk tool that predicts adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).MethodsUsing logistic regression models, we generated a risk tool in a representative population cohort (ALSPAC - UK, 5113 participants, followed from birth to age 17) using childhood clinical and sociodemographic data with internal validation. Predictors included sex, socioeconomic status, single-parent family, ADHD symptoms, comorbid disruptive disorders, childhood maltreatment, ADHD symptoms, depressive symptoms, mother's depression and intelligence quotient. The outcome was defined as a categorical diagnosis of ADHD in young adulthood without requiring age at onset criteria. We also tested Machine Learning approaches for developing the risk models: Random Forest, Stochastic Gradient Boosting and Artificial Neural Network. The risk tool was externally validated in the E-Risk cohort (UK, 2040 participants, birth to age 18), the 1993 Pelotas Birth Cohort (Brazil, 3911 participants, birth to age 18) and the MTA clinical sample (USA, 476 children with ADHD and 241 controls followed for 16 years from a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 26 years old).ResultsThe overall prevalence of adult ADHD ranged from 8.1 to 12% in the population-based samples, and was 28.6% in the clinical sample. The internal performance of the model in the generating sample was good, with an area under the curve (AUC) for predicting adult ADHD of 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.83). Calibration plots showed good agreement between predicted and observed event frequencies from 0 to 60% probability. In the UK birth cohort test sample, the AUC was 0.75 (95% CI 0.71-0.78). In the Brazilian birth cohort test sample, the AUC was significantly lower -0.57 (95% CI 0.54-0.60). In the clinical trial test sample, the AUC was 0.76 (95% CI 0.73-0.80). The risk model did not predict adult anxiety or major depressive disorder. Machine Learning approaches did not outperform logistic regression models. An open-source and free risk calculator was generated for clinical use and is available online at https://ufrgs.br/prodah/adhd-calculator/.ConclusionsThe risk tool based on childhood characteristics specifically predicts adult ADHD in European and North-American population-based and clinical samples with comparable discrimination to commonly used clinical tools in internal medicine and higher than most previous attempts for mental and neurological disorders. However, its use in middle-income settings requires caution

Safety of two-dose COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2 and CoronaVac) in adults with cancer: a territory-wide cohort study

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has defined a list of adverse events of special interest (AESI) for safety surveillance of vaccines. AESI have not been adequately assessed following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer contributing to vaccine hesitancy in this population. We aimed to evaluate the association between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines and the risk of AESI in adults with active cancer or a history of cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a territory-wide cohort study using electronic health records managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and vaccination records provided by the Department of Health. Patients with a cancer diagnosis between January 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021, were included and stratified into two cohorts: active cancer and history of cancer. Within each cohort, patients who received two doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were 1:1 matched to unvaccinated patients using the propensity score. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AESI 28 days after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: A total of 74,878 patients with cancer were included (vaccinated: 25,789 [34%]; unvaccinated: 49,089 [66%]). Among patients with active cancer, the incidence of AESI was 0.31 and 1.02 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.13 and 0.88 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Among patients with history of cancer, the incidence was 0.55 and 0.89 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.42 and 0.93 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Neither vaccine was associated with a higher risk of AESI for patients with active cancer (BNT162b2: HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08-1.09; CoronaVac: 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.18) or patients with history of cancer (BNT162b2: 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.28; CoronaVac: 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In this territory-wide cohort study of patients with cancer, the incidence of AESI following vaccination with two doses of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines was low. The findings of this study can reassure clinicians and patients with cancer about the overall safety of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in patients with cancer, which could increase the COVID-19 vaccination rate in this vulnerable group of patients