The diffusion of joint mother and baby psychiatric hospital admissions in the UK: An historical analysis

ABSTRACT Background: A key innovation in the provision of inpatient services to facilitate the care and treatment of women with severe postnatal mental illness was the introduction of joint mother and baby psychiatric hospitalisations, where both the mother and baby are admitted to hospital together. This study examined the history of the practice of joint mother and baby admissions across the UK and critically explored the processes relevant to the diffusion of joint admissions and patterns of service development to identify the possible and probable causes for significant differences in service provision across the United Kingdom (UK). Aims: The study examined the documented history of the development of practice of joint mother and baby psychiatric hospital admissions across the UK and in doing so, a) Identified the pattern of service and practice development and the likely reasons for the pattern of the chronology. b) Identified the processes involved in the diffusion of joint mother and baby admissions in the UK, and explored why the practice was sustained (or not). c) Contributed new information to the continued development of innovation diffusion theory and research, and its application to health care service and practice development. Methods: A historical method was used in the study and was reported through the use of historical narrative and analysis. Data was collated from primary and secondary sources of documented evidence which was used to inform the history of joint mother and baby admissions across the UK. Data was analysed using the theoretical framework of diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 2003). Findings: Two versions of the same innovation were identified: joint admissions to side rooms of general adult psychiatric wards or annexed areas of the wards and joint admissions to specialist mother and baby units. Neither version of the practice followed the normal S-curve pattern of adoption in terms of frequency and rate of adoption. After a period of approximately 63 years there are 24 facilities for the provision of joint admissions in the NHS in the UK. The main influencers to the adoption of the practice was perception of risk, social networks internal and external to the NHS, the presence of clinical and political champions to drive the adoption and implementation of the innovation and policy entrepreneurship by clinicians working in the clinical field of perinatal mental health. The development of specific policy, guidelines and in Scotland, legislation, has resulted in a move during the last decade from joint admissions being diffused naturally to side room admissions being actively withdrawn and specialist psychiatric mother and baby units actively being disseminated. There is strong evidence that the diffusion process for specialist mother and baby units is still in motion at the time of reporting. Conclusion: Two competing versions of the same innovation had unusual patterns of diffusion. The influencers identified as relevant to the diffusion patterns of each version of the innovation were essentially the same influencers but they were used in different ways to affect change: rejection of one version of the innovation in favour of adoption of the other. The main influencers on the diffusion of joint admissions changed over the time line of the adoption pattern. Barriers to diffusion included the absence of evidence of effectiveness, the absence of economic evaluation, the position in service divisions of perinatal mental health as a field of practice and the absence of succession planning across professional groups. Recommendations are made for future research

Long-term neurocognitive function of pediatric patients with severe combined immune deficiency (SCID): pre- and post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

BACKGROUND:Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the only cure for patients with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term neurodevelopment of patients with SCID following myeloablative chemotherapy and HSCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Sixteen pediatric patients diagnosed with SCID were tested using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and the validated Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) pre- and 1-year post-HSCT. Three years post-HSCT, there were 11 patients available for testing and four patients available 5 years post-HSCT. Patients greater than 3 years of age were administered the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. Both raw scores and scaled scores were analyzed. RESULTS:There was a significant decrease 1 year post-HSCT in the Bayley Mental Developmental Index (MDI) [92.5 (pre) vs. 70.81 (1 year post), p < 0.0001] and the VABS [99.73 (pre) vs. 79.87 (1 year post), p = <0.0001]. There was a significant decrease over time in the MDI [95.00 (pre) vs. 72.64 (1 year post) vs. 71.82 (3 years post), p < 0.0001], but no significant change between 1 and 3 years post-HSCT. There was no change in the Bayley Psychomotor Development Scale (PDI) [82.4 (pre) vs. 84.8 (1 year post), p = 0.68]. The PDI scores decreased over time [86.29 (pre) vs. 86 (1 year post) vs. 74.14 (3 years post), p = 0.045]. Although there was a decrease in scaled scores, there was not a loss of skills. Analysis of raw scores showed that there was an increase in the raw test scores, which indicated that these children acquired developmental skills, but at a slower rate than normal infants and toddlers. Younger children had a more significant decrease in adaptive scores compared with older children. CONCLUSIONS:These findings may reflect the effects of the isolation and prolonged hospitalization that characterizes the immediate post-transplant period. Patients miss out on social interactions and learning opportunities that normally occur at their respective stages of development. These restrictions keep patients from acquiring developmentally appropriate cognitive skills as well as gross and fine motor developmental milestones. Longitudinal follow-up will be important to quantify acquisition of skills

Protocol for the effective feedback to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS) study : a cluster randomised controlled trial using ePrescribing data

High-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions to improve care are attractive because they are relatively cheap to widely implement. There is good evidence that feedback has small to moderate effects, but the most recent Cochrane review called for more high-quality, large trials that explicitly test different forms of feedback. The study is a three-arm cluster-randomised trial with general practices being randomised and outcomes measured at patient level. 262 practices in three Scottish Health Board areas have been randomised (94% of all possible practices). The two active arms receive different forms of prescribing safety data feedback, with rates of high-risk prescribing compared with a ‘usual care’ arm. Sample size estimation used baseline data from participating practices. With 85 practices randomised to each arm, then there is 93% power to detect a 25% difference in the percentage of high-risk prescribing (from 6.1% to 4.5%) between the usual care arm and each intervention arm. The primary outcome is a composite of six high-risk prescribing measures (antipsychotic prescribing to people aged ≥75 years; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing to people aged ≥75 without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed aspirin/clopidogrel without gastroprotection; NSAID prescribing to people prescribed an ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and a diuretic; NSAID prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection; aspirin/clopidogrel prescription to people prescribed an oral anticoagulant without gastroprotection). The primary analysis will use multilevel modelling to account for repeated measurement of outcomes in patients clustered within practices. The study was reviewed and approved by the NHS Tayside Committee on Medical Research Ethics B (11/ES/0001). The study will be disseminated via a final report to the funder with a publicly available research summary, and peer reviewed publications