RESUMEN

AIMS: Children with neuro-developmental disorders faced significant challenges in accessing services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telehealth has been adopted by health services globally to facilitate access to clinical services. Our aims were to evaluate the utility of the telehealth modality for providing developmental assessment services and explore enablers and barriers to using telehealth, in a culturally diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged population in Sydney. METHODS: We reviewed telehealth developmental assessments in South Western Sydney conducted between 1 April and 30 June 2020. Data were collated on demographics; telehealth modality; diagnostic formulation; recommendations; and requested follow up. We conducted retrospective semi-structured telephone interviews with 79 families and 11 clinicians about their telehealth experience. Thematic analysis was carried out on the open text responses. RESULTS: Of 205 children assessed across six sites, median age was 48 months; 45% were assessed with video and 55% with telephone only. Diagnostic formulation and therapeutic recommendations were provided for 203 (99%) children and 138 (67%) were asked to come for face-to-face follow-up. The majority of families (76%) were satisfied or extremely satisfied with telehealth. Median clinician satisfaction was 3.5 out of 5, whilst clinician confidence with diagnostic formulation was 4 out of 5. Qualitative data revealed a range of barriers and enablers. CONCLUSION: Telehealth was a successful modality for contributing to the assessment journey for children with neuro-developmental disorders in our culturally, linguistically and socioeconomically diverse clinical population in the context of a pandemic lockdown. We discuss the potential for telehealth modalities in child developmental assessments beyond the pandemic.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), data regarding access to child development services have remained limited globally. Long wait times are a major barrier to developmental assessments, impacting on care and outcomes. The aim is to retrospectively analyse the demographic profile and prioritisation of patients seen at a child developmental assessment service (CDAS) in a vulnerable region of Sydney, and explore factors affecting wait times. METHODS: Data was collated and analysed for 2354 patients from 2018 to 2022. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) were collated from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Descriptive statistics were used for demographic data and various statistical methods were used to analyse the relationships and impact of factors likely to affect wait lists. RESULTS: The median age was 51 months (IQR41-61) and males comprised 73.7% of the cohort. 64% of children were from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (CALD) and 47% lived in the most disadvantaged suburbs. The median wait time was 302.5 days (IQR175-379) and 70% of children were seen within 12 months. CALD patients and children over 5-years had shorter wait times. Most children with Global Developmental Delay (GDD) were from the lowest four SEIFA deciles and waited longer for an appointment. 42.6% were seen within the priority allocated time or sooner. Children with ASD and/or severe GDD were prioritised to be seen earlier. Overall, the study could not demonstrate any difference in the wait times according to the prioritisation groups. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into the profile, prioritisation processes and wait lists of children seen by CDAS in South Western Sydney with high rates of social vulnerability and presents an argument to discuss benchmarking targets with service providers. It identifies the need to prioritise children living in suburbs with socioeconomic disadvantage and refine prioritisation and data collection processes to improve wait times.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) are associated with poor short, medium and long-term health outcomes. South Western Sydney (SWS) has a large culturally diverse population, including many disadvantaged population groups. Our aims were to determine the burden of ACE in children attending community paediatric (CP) clinics using a purposefully developed ACE checklist, and explore any association with developmental health of children. METHODS: We trialled the ACE checklist in all CP clinics including child development (CD) and vulnerable child (VC) clinics between February 2017 and August 2017. Data were collated from completed ACE checklists and relevant clinical information from CP clinics. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS and MedCalc software. RESULTS: Of 279 children seen in CP clinics with checklists completed for the period, 167 (60%) attended CD clinics and 112 (40%) attended VC clinics. Seventy-eight (28%) had ACE ≥4 and 178 (64%) had ACE ≥1. Of those attending CD clinics, 8 (5%) had ACE ≥4 compared with 70 (63%) attending VC clinics (p<0.001). Of all age groups, children ≥10 years of age had the highest proportion of children with ACE ≥4 (65%); significant association between age group and ACE ≥4 (p<0.001). There was a significant association between cultural background and ACE ≥4 (p<0.001); indigenous children had the highest proportion of ACE ≥4 (n=21; 64%), followed by Anglo-Australian children (55%). On logistic regression analysis, only attending VC clinics was significantly associated with ACE ≥4. There was no significant association between ACE ≥4 and developmental health. CONCLUSION: Among children attending CP clinics in SWS, more than a quarter had a significant burden of ACE; those attending specialised clinics for vulnerable children, those from particular ethnic groups and from older age groups, had the highest burden of ACE. Our findings support the need for specialised pathways for paediatric assessment for vulnerable, at-risk children.

RESUMEN

AIM: There is strong evidence that adverse childhood experiences (ACE) are associated with poor short-, medium- and long-term health outcomes. In South Western Sydney, we trialled a modified ACE checklist in community paediatric clinics. Our aim was to design the best version of the ACE checklist for routine clinical use to serve as both a clinical and quality indicator. METHODS: We trialled two versions of the modified ACE checklist based on a pre-existing tool in child development (CD) and vulnerable child (VC) clinics over a 6-month period in 2012 (V1) and 7-month period in 2017 (V2). We analysed clinical and demographic data and correlated with ACE scores. We asked clinicians about the use of the ACE checklist and modified the checklist based on clinicians' recommendations. RESULTS: In phase 1, V1 was trialled in CD clinics only; 77 children were assessed, of whom 38 children (49%) had ACE score of ≥1, and 8 (10%) had a score of ≥4. In phase 2, of 279 children assessed, 178 (64%) had ACE ≥1, and 78 (28%) had ACE ≥4. In both phases, clinicians found the checklist simple to use and helpful in identifying especially vulnerable children. CONCLUSIONS: The ACE checklist helps clinicians and managers identify the burden of exposure to trauma, violence and abuse of children attending paediatric clinics, both to facilitate intervention and aid service development. This version of the ACE checklist has the potential to be used across a variety of populations and settings as a clinical and quality indicator.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are a heterogeneous group of neurodevelopmental disorders, ranging in severity and characterised by early onset of delay and deviance in the development of social interaction, and verbal and nonverbal communication. ASD is associated with restricted and/or stereotyped interests or behaviours. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) block noradrenaline and serotonin reuptake, increasing the availability of these neurotransmitters in the central nervous system. Via their impact on serotonin, TCAs have been used in the treatment of autistic symptoms and comorbidities in individuals with ASD.   OBJECTIVES: To determine if treatment with tricyclic antidepressants:1) improves the core features of autism, including restricted social interaction, restricted communication, and stereotypical and repetitive behaviours; 2) improves non-core features such as challenging behaviours; 3) improves comorbid states, such as depression and anxiety; 4) causes adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We ran the latest searches for this review on 23 May 2011. We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2011 Issue 2, MEDLINE (1948 to May Week 2, 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 2), PsycINFO (1887 to current), CINAHL (1937 to current). We also searched Dissertation Abstracts International via Dissertation Express, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any dose, duration and frequency of oral TCAs compared with placebo, in children and adolescents with a diagnosis of ASD, where at least one standardised outcome measure had been used. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected and appraised the studies for inclusion and risk of bias. All data were continuous. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Two studies used clomipramine and one used tianeptine. All three trials were small, with between 12 and 32 participants. One of the clomipramine trials involved children and young adults, while the other two trials enrolled only children. Due to heterogeneity in study participant characteristics, the TCA medications investigated and the outcome measures used, we were not able to perform any meta-analysis.In only one of the three studies was there any indication that giving children tianeptine could be effective in the short term. In this study, parents and teachers reported that it reduced irritability, hyperactivity, inadequate eye contact and inappropriate speech, but clinician ratings found no significant impact on these symptoms. There were also significant adverse effects, including increased drowsiness and reduced activity levels in these individuals while being treated with tianeptine. The evidence of the impact of clomipramine in the two studies is contradictory. There was evidence of improvement in autistic symptoms, irritability and obsessive-compulsive disorder type symptoms, but conflicting evidence in relation to hyperactivity across the two studies, and no significant changes found with inappropriate speech. There were also adverse effects reported with the use of clomipramine. Although side effect ratings were not significantly different to placebo, there were significant dropout rates in the clomipramine arm of one study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians considering the use of TCAs need to be aware of the limited and conflicting evidence of effect and the side effect profile when discussing this treatment option with people who have ASD and their carers. Further research is required before TCAs can be recommended for treatment of individuals with ASD.

Asunto(s)