The experiences of young people, parents and professionals of using the attend anywhere video consultation system in a child and adolescent mental health service: a mixed-methods approach

BackgroundIn 2020, Attend Anywhere video consultation service was introduced across the Irish public health service to facilitate the provision of health interventions remotely in light of COVID-19-related restrictions. This study aims to explore the experiences of young people, their parents and their clinicians, of using the newly introduced Attend Anywhere video consultation as part of their Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS).MethodA cross-section of twenty-nine young people, their parents and clinicians working in CAMHS Clare completed a survey pertaining to their experiences of using Attend Anywhere as part of their service. A cross-disciplinary research steering group of CAMHS clinicians adapted the NHS Scotland evaluation of Attend Anywhere / Near Me survey to better capture experiences in a CAMHS setting. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative items. Descriptive statistics were used to examine quantitative data. Qualitative data was analysed using Thematic Analysis.Results/FindingsResults demonstrated a decrease in the number of barriers reported by clients and professionals in accessing the CAMH service following the introduction of Attend Anywhere video consultation. Overall, the majority of professionals reported that they would use Attend Anywhere again, whereas almost a quarter of clients reported that they did not wish to use it again. Clients indicated a preference for receiving face-to-face services over other service provision options and this finding was associated with not having to rely on technology or manage connectivity issues and finding it easier to build the therapeutic relationship in-person.ConclusionFindings suggest that both professionals and clients value face-to-face service provision while also acknowledging the benefits of Video Enabled Care in overcoming access barriers. We conclude that VEC be offered as an option in a blended service model, in conjunction with rather than as a replacement of face-to-face service provision

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

Background Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.Methods This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894.Findings Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91–1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]). Interpretation Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus

The experiences of young people, parents and professionals of using the attend anywhere video consultation system in a child and adolescent mental health service: a mixed-methods approach

Background: In 2020, Attend Anywhere video consultation service was introduced across the Irish public health service to facilitate the provision of health interventions remotely in light of COVID-19-related restrictions. This study aims to explore the experiences of young people, their parents and their clinicians, of using the newly introduced Attend Anywhere video consultation as part of their Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS).Method: A cross-section of twenty-nine young people, their parents and clinicians working in CAMHS Clare completed a survey pertaining to their experiences of using Attend Anywhere as part of their service. A cross-disciplinary research steering group of CAMHS clinicians adapted the NHS Scotland evaluation of Attend Anywhere / Near Me survey to better capture experiences in a CAMHS setting. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative items. Descriptive statistics were used to examine quantitative data. Qualitative data was analysed using Thematic Analysis.Results/Findings: Results demonstrated a decrease in the number of barriers reported by clients and professionals in accessing the CAMH service following the introduction of Attend Anywhere video consultation. Overall, the majority of professionals reported that they would use Attend Anywhere again, whereas almost a quarter of clients reported that they did not wish to use it again. Clients indicated a preference for receiving face-to-face services over other service provision options and this finding was associated with not having to rely on technology or manage connectivity issues and finding it easier to build the therapeutic relationship in-person.Conclusion: Findings suggest that both professionals and clients value face-to-face service provision while also acknowledging the benefits of Video Enabled Care in overcoming access barriers. We conclude that VEC be offered as an option in a blended service model, in conjunction with rather than as a replacement of face-to-face service provision.</p

Factors Influencing the Application of a Biopsychosocial Perspective in Clinical Judgement of Chronic Pain: Interactive Management with Medical Students

Background: Though there is wide support for the application of biopsychosocial perspectives in clinical judgement of chronic pain cases, such perspectives are often overlooked due to either inadequate training or attitudes favoring a biomedical approach. Recent research has indicated that despite such explanations, both established general practitioners (GP) and medical students account for some psychosocial factors when making clinical judgements regarding chronic pain cases, but report not being likely to apply these in real-world, clinical settings due to numerous factors, including available time with patients. Thus, it is evident that a greater understanding of clinical judgement-making processes and the factors that affect application of these processes is required, particularly regarding chronic pain.Objectives: The aims of the current study were to investigate medical students’ conceptualizations of the factors that influence application of a biopsychosocial approach to clinical judgement-making incases of chronic pain using interactive management (IM), model the relationships among these factors, and make recommendations to chronic pain treatment policy in light of the findings.Study Design: The current study used IM to identify and model factors that influence the application of a biopsychosocial approach to clinical judgement-making in cases of chronic pain, based on medical students’ conceptualizations of these factors.Setting: Two university classrooms.Methods: IM is a systems thinking and action mapping strategy used to aid groups in developing outcomes regarding complex issues, through integrating contributions from individuals with diverse views, backgrounds, and perspectives. IM commonly utilizes the nominal group technique and interpretive structural modeling, which in this context were employed to help medical students identify, clarify, and model influences on the application of biopsychosocial perspectives in treating chronic pain patients.Results: Results of IM group work revealed 7 core biopsychosocial approach application categories: GP attitudes, cost, GP knowledge, time, patient-doctor relationship, biomedical factors. and patient perception. GP attitudes was the most critical driver of all other competencies in the system, with cost and GP knowledge revealed as secondary drivers.Limitations: Potential differences in level of prior biopsychosocial perspective knowledge across participants and a potentially small sample size (though consistent with past research and appropriate for an exploratory study of this nature – for purposes of achieving the depth and richness of the deliberation and qualitative insights revealed by participants using the IM methodology).Conclusions: Results from this study may be used to both recommend further research on the identified factors influencing application of biopsychosocial perspectives in treatment of chronic pain and support amendment to extant health care policy, particularly with respect to cost, GP attitudes, and knowledge. Though this research claims neither that the influences identified are the only influences on biopsychosocial application, nor the order of their importance, the research does contribute to an ongoing effort to better understand the factors that influence doctors in their treatment of chronic pain