Navigating the Complex Pathway of Youth Athletic Development: Challenges and Solutions to Managing the Training Load of Youth Team Sport Athletes

The development of a youth team sport athlete is a complex process. This article outlines challenges that may restrict the optimal balance between training and recovery and provide solutions to help practitioners overcome these challenges. To facilitate positive youth athletic development, training aims must be aligned between stakeholders to synchronize periods of intensified training and recovery. Within- and between-athlete variations in weekly training load must be managed and practitioners should attempt to ensure the intended load of training equals the load perceived by the athlete. Furthermore, practitioners should be cognizant of the athletes' nonsport-related stressors to enable both academic and sporting pursuits. Although each of these challenges adds intricacy, they may be overcome through collaboration, monitoring, and, if necessary, the modification of the athletes' training load

The propensity of non-concussive and concussive head contacts during elite-level women's rugby league matches : A prospective analysis of over 14,000 tackle events

Objectives Identify the frequency, propensity, and factors related to tackle events which result in contact with the head in elite-level women's rugby league. Design Prospective video analysis study. Methods Video footage from 59 Women's Super League matches were analysed (n = 14,378 tackle events). All tackle events were coded as no head contact or head contact. Other independent variables included: area contacting head, impacted player, concussion outcome, penalty outcome, round of competition, time in match and team standard. Results There were 83.0 ± 20.0 (propensity 304.0/1000 tackle events) head contacts per match. The propensity of head contact was significantly greater for the tackler than ball-carrier (178.5 vs. 125.7/1000 tackle events; incident rate ratio 1.42, 95 % confidence interval 1.34 to 1.50). Head contacts occurring from an arm, shoulder, and head occurred significantly more than any other contact type. The propensity of concussions was 2.7/1000 head contacts. There was no significant influence of team standard or time in match on the propensity of head contacts. Conclusions The observed head contacts can inform interventions, primarily focusing on the tackler not contacting the ball-carrier's head. The tackler's head should also be appropriately positioned to avoid contact with the ball-carrier's knee (highest propensity for concussion). The findings are consistent with other research in men's rugby. Law modifications and/or enforcement (reducing the number of un-penalised head contacts), concurrent with coaching interventions (optimising head placement or reducing the head being contacted) may help minimise head contact risk factors for women's rugby league

Potential impacts of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments in England: Initial qualitative findings from a national mixed-methods evaluation

Objectives To explore the potential impacts of introducing General Practitioners into Emergency Departments (GPED) from the perspectives of service leaders, health professionals and patients. These 'expectations of impact' can be used to generate hypotheses that will inform future implementations and evaluations of GPED. Design Qualitative study consisting of 228 semistructured interviews. Setting 10 acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals and the wider healthcare system in England. Interviews were undertaken face to face or via telephone. Data were analysed thematically. Participants 124 health professionals and 94 patients and carers. 10 service leaders representing a range of national organisations and government departments across England (eg, NHS England and Department of Health) were also interviewed. Results A range of GPED models are being implemented across the NHS due to different interpretations of national policy and variation in local context. This has resulted in stakeholders and organisations interpreting the aims of GPED differently and anticipating a range of potential impacts. Participants expected GPED to affect the following areas: ED performance indicators; patient outcome and experience; service access; staffing and workforce experience; and resources. Across these 'domains of influence', arguments for positive, negative and no effect of GPED were proposed. Conclusions Evaluating whether GPED has been successful will be challenging. However, despite uncertainty surrounding the direction of effect, there was agreement across all stakeholder groups on the areas that GPED would influence. As a result, we propose eight domains of influence that will inform our subsequent mixed-methods evaluation of GPED

General practitioners and emergency departments (GPED) - Efficient models of care: A mixed-methods study protocol

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. Introduction Pressure continues to grow on emergency departments in the UK and throughout the world, with declining performance and adverse effects on patient outcome, safety and experience. One proposed solution is to locate general practitioners to work in or alongside the emergency department (GPED). Several GPED models have been introduced, however, evidence of effectiveness is weak. This study aims to evaluate the impact of GPED on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team and the wider urgent care system. Methods and analysis The study will be divided into three work packages (WPs). WP-A; Mapping and Taxonomy: Mapping, description and classification of current models of GPED in all emergency departments in England and interviews with key informants to examine the hypotheses that underpin GPED. WP-B; Quantitative Analysis of National Data: Measurement of the effectiveness, costs and consequences of the GPED models identified in WP-A, compared with a no-GPED model, using retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics Data. WP-C; Case Studies: Detailed case studies of different GPED models using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods including: non-participant observation of clinical care, semistructured interviews with staff, patients and carers; workforce surveys with emergency department staff and analysis of available local routinely collected hospital data. Prospective case study sites will be identified by completing telephone interviews with sites awarded capital funding by the UK government to implement GPED initiatives. The study has a strong patient and public involvement group that has contributed to study design and materials, and which will be closely involved in data interpretation and dissemination. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the National Health Service East Midlands - Leicester South Research Ethics Committee: 17/EM/0312. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and a planned programme of knowledge mobilisation

The influence of training load, exposure to match play and sleep duration on daily wellbeing measures in youth athletes

This study assessed the influence of training load, exposure to match play and sleep duration on two daily wellbeing measures in youth athletes. Forty-eight youth athletes (age 17.3 ± 0.5 years) completed a daily wellbeing questionnaire (DWB), the Perceived Recovery Status scale (PRS), and provided details on the previous day’s training loads (TL) and self-reported sleep duration (sleep) every day for 13 weeks (n = 2727). Linear mixed models assessed the effect of TL, exposure to match play and sleep on DWB and PRS. An increase in TL had a most likely small effect on muscle soreness (d = −0.43;± 0.10) and PRS (d = −0.37;± 0.09). Match play had a likely small additive effect on muscle soreness (d = −0.26;± 0.09) and PRS (d = −0.25;± 0.08). An increase in sleep had a most likely moderate effect on sleep quality (d = 0.80;± 0.14); a most likely small effect on DWB (d = 0.45;± 0.09) and fatigue (d = 0.42;± 0.11); and a likely small effect on PRS (d = 0.25;± 0.09). All other effects were trivial or did not reach the pre-determined threshold for practical significance. The influence of sleep on multiple DWB subscales and the PRS suggests that practitioners should consider the recovery of an athlete alongside the training stress imposed when considering deviations in wellbeing measures

Do general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department improve clinical outcomes or experience? A mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of general practitioners (GPs) working in or alongside the emergency department (GPED) on patient outcomes and experience, and the associated impacts of implementation on the workforce. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study: interviews with service leaders and NHS managers; in-depth case studies (n=10) and retrospective observational analysis of routinely collected national data. We used normalisation process theory to map our findings to the theory's four main constructs of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 64 EDs in England. Case site data included: non-participant observation of 142 clinical encounters; 467 semistructured interviews with policy-makers, service leaders, clinical staff, patients and carers. Retrospective observational analysis used routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics alongside information on GPED service hours from 40 hospitals for which complete data were available. RESULTS: There was disagreement at individual, stakeholder and organisational levels regarding the purpose and potential impact of GPED (coherence). Participants criticised policy development and implementation, and staff engagement was hindered by tensions between ED and GP staff (cognitive participation). Patient 'streaming' processes, staffing and resource constraints influenced whether GPED became embedded in routine practice. Concerns that GPED may increase ED attendance influenced staff views. Our quantitative analysis showed no detectable impact on attendance (collective action). Stakeholders disagreed whether GPED was successful, due to variations in GPED model, site-specific patient mix and governance arrangements. Following statistical adjustment for multiple testing, we found no impact on: ED reattendances within 7 days, patients discharged within 4 hours of arrival, patients leaving the ED without being seen; inpatient admissions; non-urgent ED attendances and 30-day mortality (reflexive monitoring). CONCLUSIONS: We found a high degree of variability between hospital sites, but no overall evidence that GPED increases the efficient operation of EDs or improves clinical outcomes, patient or staff experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN5178022

General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department : the GPED mixed-methods study

Background: Emergency care is facing a steadily rising demand. In response, hospitals have implemented new models of care that locate general practitioners in or alongside the emergency department. Objectives: We aimed to explore the effects of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team, and the wider system, as well as to determine the differential effects of different service models. Design: This was a mixed-methods study in three work packages. Work package A classified current models of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department in England. We interviewed national and local leaders, staff and patients to identify the hypotheses underpinning these services. Work package B used a retrospective analysis of routinely available data. Outcome measures included waiting times, admission rates, reattendances, mortality and the number of patient attendances. We explored potential cost savings. Work package C was a detailed mixed-methods case study in 10 sites. We collected and synthesised qualitative and quantitative data from non-participant observations, interviews and a workforce survey. Patients and the public were involved throughout the development, delivery and dissemination of the study. Results: High-level goals were shared between national policy-makers and local leads; however, there was disagreement about the anticipated effects. We identified eight domains of influence: performance against the 4-hour target, use of investigations, hospital admissions, patient outcome and experience, service access, workforce recruitment and retention, workforce behaviour and experience, and resource use. General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department were associated with a very slight reduction in the rate of reattendance within 7 days; however, the clinical significance of this was judged to be negligible. For all other indicators, there was no effect on performance or outcomes. However, there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity in these findings. This is explained by the considerable variation observed in our case study sites, and the sensitivity of service implementation to local factors. The effects on the workforce were complex; they were often positive for emergency department doctors and general practitioners, but less so for nursing staff. The patient-streaming process generated stress and conflict for emergency department nurses and general practitioners. Patients and carers were understanding of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department. We found no evidence that staff concerns regarding the potential to create additional demand were justified. Any possible cost savings associated with reduced reattendances were heavily outweighed by the cost of the service. Limitations: The reliability of our data sources varied and we were unable to complete our quantitative analysis entirely as planned. Participation in interviews and at case study sites was voluntary. Conclusions: Service implementation was highly subject to local context and micro-level influences. Key success factors were interprofessional working, staffing and training, streaming, and infrastructure and support

General practitioners working in or alongside The emergency department: the GPED mixed-methods study

Background: Emergency care is facing a steadily rising demand. In response, hospitals have implemented new models of care that locate general practitioners in or alongside the emergency department.Objectives: We aimed to explore the effects of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department on patient care, the primary care and acute hospital team, and the wider system, as well as to determine the differential effects of different service models.Design: This was a mixed-methods study in three work packages. Work package A classified current models of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department in England. We interviewed national and local leaders, staff and patients to identify the hypotheses underpinning these services. Work package B used a retrospective analysis of routinely available data. Outcome measures included waiting times, admission rates, reattendances, mortality and the number of patient attendances. We explored potential cost savings. Work package C was a detailed mixed-methods case study in 10 sites. We collected and synthesised qualitative and quantitative data from non-participant observations, interviews and a workforce survey. Patients and the public were involved throughout the development, delivery and dissemination of the study.Results: High-level goals were shared between national policy-makers and local leads; however, there was disagreement about the anticipated effects. We identified eight domains of influence: performance against the 4-hour target, use of investigations, hospital admissions, patient outcome and experience, service access, workforce recruitment and retention, workforce behaviour and experience, and resource use. General practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department were associated with a very slight reduction in the rate of reattendance within 7 days; however, the clinical significance of this was judged to be negligible. For all other indicators, there was no effect on performance or outcomes. However, there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity in these findings. This is explained by the considerable variation observed in our case study sites, and the sensitivity of service implementation tolocal factors. The effects on the workforce were complex; they were often positive for emergency department doctors and general practitioners, but less so for nursing staff. The patient-streaming process generated stress and conflict for emergency department nurses and general practitioners. Patients and carers were understanding of general practitioners working in or alongside the emergency department. We found no evidence that staff concerns regarding the potential to create additional demand were justified. Any possible cost savings associated with reduced reattendances were heavily outweighed by the cost of the service.Limitations: The reliability of our data sources varied and we were unable to complete our quantitative analysis entirely as planned. Participation in interviews and at case study sites was voluntary.Conclusions: Service implementation was highly subject to local context and micro-level influences. Key success factors were interprofessional working, staffing and training, streaming, and infrastructure and support.Future work: Further research should study the longer-term effects of these services, clinician attitudes to risk and the implementation of streaming. Additional work should also examine the system effectsof national policy initiatives, develop methodologies to support rapid service evaluation and study the relationship between primary and secondary care.Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN51780222.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Myelination is associated with processing speed in early childhood:preliminary insights

Processing speed is an important contributor to working memory performance and fluid intelligence in young children. Myelinated white matter plays a central role in brain messaging, and likely mediates processing speed, but little is known about the relationship between myelination and processing speed in young children. In the present study, processing speed was measured through inspection times, and myelin volume fraction (VFM) was quantified using a multicomponent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) approach in 2- to 5-years of age. Both inspection times and VFM were found to increase with age. Greater VFM in the right and left occipital lobes, the body of the corpus callosum, and the right cerebellum was significantly associated with shorter inspection times, after controlling for age. A hierarchical regression showed that VFM in the left occipital lobe predicted inspection times over and beyond the effects of age and the VFM in the other brain regions. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that myelin supports processing speed in early childhood