Hospital Readmission in General Medicine Patients: A Prediction Model

Background: Previous studies of hospital readmission have focused on specific conditions or populations and generated complex prediction models. Objective: To identify predictors of early hospital readmission in a diverse patient population and derive and validate a simple model for identifying patients at high readmission risk. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Patients: Participants encompassed 10,946 patients discharged home from general medicine services at six academic medical centers and were randomly divided into derivation (n = 7,287) and validation (n = 3,659) cohorts. Measurements: We identified readmissions from administrative data and 30-day post-discharge telephone follow-up. Patient-level factors were grouped into four categories: sociodemographic factors, social support, health condition, and healthcare utilization. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify significant predictors of unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge and developed a scoring system for estimating readmission risk. Results: Approximately 17.5% of patients were readmitted in each cohort. Among patients in the derivation cohort, seven factors emerged as significant predictors of early readmission: insurance status, marital status, having a regular physician, Charlson comorbidity index, SF12 physical component score, ≥1 admission(s) within the last year, and current length of stay >2 days. A cumulative risk score of ≥25 points identified 5% of patients with a readmission risk of approximately 30% in each cohort. Model discrimination was fair with a c-statistic of 0.65 and 0.61 for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: Select patient characteristics easily available shortly after admission can be used to identify a subset of patients at elevated risk of early readmission. This information may guide the efficient use of interventions to prevent readmission

Immunity of an Alternative Host Can Be Overcome by Higher Densities of Its Parasitoids Palmistichus elaeisis and Trichospilus diatraeae

Interactions of the parasitoids Palmistichus elaeisis Delvare & LaSalle and Trichospilus diatraeae Cherian & Margabandhu (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) with its alternative host Anticarsia gemmatalis (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) affect the success or failure of the mass production of these parasitoids for use in integrated pest management programs. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in the cellular defense and encapsulation ability of A. gemmatalis pupae against P. elaeisis or T. diatraeae in adult parasitoid densities of 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 parasitoids/pupae. We evaluated the total quantity of circulating hemocytes and the encapsulation rate versus density. Increasing parasitoid density reduced the total number of hemocytes in the hemolymph and the encapsulation rate by parasitized pupae. Furthermore, densities of P. elaeisis above 5 parasitoids/pupae caused higher reduction in total hemocyte numbers. The encapsulation rate fell with increasing parasitoid density. However, parasitic invasion by both species induced generally similar responses. The reduction in defensive capacity of A. gemmatalis is related to the adjustment of the density of these parasitoids to their development in this host. Thus, the role of the density of P. elaeisis or T. diatraeae by pupa is induced suppression of cellular defense and encapsulation of the host, even without them possesses a co-evolutionary history. Furthermore, these findings can predict the success of P. elaeisis and T. diatraeae in the control of insect pests through the use of immunology as a tool for evaluation of natural enemies

Facts, values, and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): an update on the controversies

The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, is holding a series of 5 workshops to examine the controversies surrounding the use of medication to treat emotional and behavioral disturbances in children. These workshops bring together clinicians, researchers, scholars, and advocates with diverse perspectives and from diverse fields. Our first commentary in CAPMH, which grew out of our first workshop, explained our method and explored the controversies in general. This commentary, which grows out of our second workshop, explains why informed people can disagree about ADHD diagnosis and treatment. Based on what workshop participants said and our understanding of the literature, we make 8 points. (1) The ADHD label is based on the interpretation of a heterogeneous set of symptoms that cause impairment. (2) Because symptoms and impairments are dimensional, there is an inevitable "zone of ambiguity," which reasonable people will interpret differently. (3) Many other variables, from different systems and tools of diagnosis to different parenting styles and expectations, also help explain why behaviors associated with ADHD can be interpreted differently. (4) Because people hold competing views about the proper goals of psychiatry and parenting, some people will be more, and others less, concerned about treating children in the zone of ambiguity. (5) To recognize that nature has written no bright line between impaired and unimpaired children, and that it is the responsibility of humans to choose who should receive a diagnosis, does not diminish the significance of ADHD. (6) Once ADHD is diagnosed, the facts surrounding the most effective treatment are complicated and incomplete; contrary to some popular wisdom, behavioral treatments, alone or in combination with low doses of medication, can be effective in the long-term reduction of core ADHD symptoms and at improving many aspects of overall functioning. (7) Especially when a child occupies the zone of ambiguity, different people will emphasize different values embedded in the pharmacological and behavioral approaches. (8) Truly informed decision-making requires that parents (and to the extent they are able, children) have some sense of the complicated and incomplete facts regarding the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD

What do parents perceive are the barriers and facilitators to accessing psychological treatment for mental health problems in children and adolescents? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies

A minority of children and adolescents with mental health problems access treatment. The reasons for poor rates of treatment access are not well understood. As parents are a key gatekeeper to treatment access, it is important to establish parents’ views of barriers/facilitators to accessing treatment. The aims of this study are to synthesise findings from qualitative and quantitative studies that report parents’ perceptions of barriers/facilitators to accessing treatment for mental health problems in children/adolescents. A systematic review and narrative synthesis were conducted. Forty-four studies were included in the review and were assessed in detail. Parental perceived barriers/facilitators relating to (1) systemic/structural issues; (2) views and attitudes towards services and treatment; (3) knowledge and understanding of mental health problems and the help-seeking process; and (4) family circumstances were identified. Findings highlight avenues for improving access to child mental health services, including increased provision that is free to service users and flexible to their needs, with opportunities to develop trusting, supportive relationships with professionals. Furthermore, interventions are required to improve parents’ identification of mental health problems, reduce stigma for parents, and increase awareness of how to access services

Study protocol: the sleeping sound with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder project

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Up to 70% of children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) experience sleep problems including difficulties initiating and maintaining sleep. Sleep problems in children with ADHD can result in poorer child functioning, impacting on school attendance, daily functioning and behaviour, as well as parental mental health and work attendance. The Sleeping Sound with ADHD trial aims to investigate the efficacy of a behavioural sleep program in treating sleep problems experienced by children with ADHD. We have demonstrated the feasibility and the acceptability of this treatment program in a pilot study.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This randomised controlled trial (RCT) is being conducted with 198 children (aged between 5 to 12 years) with ADHD and moderate to severe sleep problems. Children are recruited from public and private paediatric practices across the state of Victoria, Australia. Upon receiving informed written consent, families are randomised to receive either the behavioural sleep intervention or usual care. The intervention consists of two individual, face-to-face consultations and a follow-up phone call with a trained clinician (trainee consultant paediatrician or psychologist), focusing on the assessment and management of child sleep problems. The primary outcome is parent- and teacher-reported ADHD symptoms (ADHD Rating Scale IV). Secondary outcomes are child sleep (actigraphy and parent report), behaviour, daily functioning, school attendance and working memory, as well as parent mental health and work attendance. We are also assessing the impact of children's psychiatric comorbidity (measured using a structured diagnostic interview) on treatment outcome.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>To our knowledge, this is the first RCT of a behavioural intervention aiming to treat sleep problems in children with ADHD. If effective, this program will provide a feasible non-pharmacological and acceptable intervention improving child sleep and ADHD symptoms in this patient group.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68819261.</p> <p> ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN68819261">ISRCTN68819261</a></p

Effects of maternal and paternal smoking on attentional control in children with and without ADHD

Maternal smoking during pregnancy is a risk factor for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but data on its adverse effects on cognitive functioning are sparse and inconsistent. Since the effect of maternal smoking during pregnancy may be due to correlated genetic risk factors rather than being a pure environmental effect, we examined the effect of prenatal exposure to smoking on attentional control, taking into account the effects of both maternal and paternal smoking, and examined whether these effects were genetically mediated by parental genotypes. We further examined whether the effect of prenatal exposure to smoking on attentional control interacted with genotypes of the child. Participants were 79 children with ADHD, ascertained for the International Multi-centre ADHD Gene project (IMAGE), and 105 normal controls. Attentional control was assessed by a visual continuous performance task. Three genetic risk factors for ADHD (DRD4 7-repeat allele of the exon 3 variable number of tandem repeats (VNTR), DAT1 10/10 genotype of the VNTR located in the 3′ untranslated region, and the DAT1 6/6 genotype of the intron 8 VNTR) were included in the analyses. Paternal smoking had a negative effect on attentional control in children with ADHD and this effect appeared to be mediated by genetic risk factors. The prenatal smoking effect did not interact with genotypes of the child. Maternal smoking had no main effect on attentional control, which may be due to lower smoking rates. This study suggests that the effects of paternal smoking on attentional control in children with ADHD should be considered a proxy for ADHD and/or smoking risk genes. Future studies should examine if the results can be generalized to other cognitive domains

Advances in understanding and treating ADHD

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurocognitive behavioral developmental disorder most commonly seen in childhood and adolescence, which often extends to the adult years. Relative to a decade ago, there has been extensive research into understanding the factors underlying ADHD, leading to far more treatment options available for both adolescents and adults with this disorder. Novel stimulant formulations have made it possible to tailor treatment to the duration of efficacy required by patients, and to help mitigate the potential for abuse, misuse and diversion. Several new non-stimulant options have also emerged in the past few years. Among these, cognitive behavioral interventions have proven popular in the treatment of adult ADHD, especially within the adult population who cannot or will not use medications, along with the many medication-treated patients who continue to show residual disability

Treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder beyond symptom control alone in children and adolescents: a review of the potential benefits of long-acting stimulants

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), one of the most common neuropsychiatric conditions of childhood, often has a chronic course and persists into adulthood in many individuals. ADHD may have a clinically important impact on health-related quality of life in children, a significant impact on parents’ emotional health and interfere with family activities/cohesion. To date, the main targets of ADHD treatment have focused on reducing the severity of symptoms during the school day and improving academic performance. However, the treatment of ADHD should reach beyond symptom control to address the issues of social competencies and improvement of health-related quality of life from the perspectives of individuals with ADHD and their families, to support them in reaching their full developmental potential. Methylphenidate (MPH) is recognised as the first-line choice of pharmacotherapy for ADHD in children and adolescents. This paper focuses on the importance and benefits to child development of ADHD symptom control beyond the school day only, i.e. extending into late afternoon and evening and uses the example of an extended-release MPH formulation (OROS® MPH) to demonstrate the potential benefits of active full day coverage (12 h) with a single daily dose. Concerns of long-term stimulant treatment are also discussed