Project description:AimTo characterize child neurology telemedicine visits flagged as requiring in-person evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodWe analyzed 7130 audio-video telemedicine visits between March and November 2020. Visits of concern (VOCs) were defined as telemedicine visits where the clinical scenario necessitated in-person follow-up evaluation sooner than if the visit had been conducted in-person.ResultsVOCs occurred in 5% (333/7130) of visits for 292 individuals (148 females, 144 males). Providers noted technical challenges more often in VOCs (40%; 133/333) than visits without concern (non-VOCs) (28%; 1922/6797) (p < 0.05). The median age was younger in VOCs (9 years 3 months, interquartile range [IQR] 2 years 0 months-14 years 3 months) than non-VOCs (11 years 3 months, IQR 5 years 10 months-15 years 10 months) (p < 0.05). Median household income was lower for patients with VOCs ($74 K, IQR $55 K-$97 K) compared to non-VOCs ($80 K, IQR $61 K-$100 K) (p < 0.05). Compared with all other race categories, families who self-identified as Black were more likely to have a VOC (odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.21-2.06). Epilepsy and headache represented the highest percentages of VOCs, while neuromuscular disorders and developmental delay had a higher proportion of VOCs than other neurological disorders.InterpretationThese findings suggest that telemedicine is an effective platform for most child neurology visits. Younger children and those with neuromuscular disorders or developmental delays are more likely to require in-person evaluation.What this paper addsIt is possible to successfully flag patients who need in-person assessment. Providers can manage issues arising during telemedicine in 95% of visits. Visits flagged as concerning were likely unrelated to modality of patient care. Provider concern was independent of technical difficulties for most telehealth visits. Younger age may be correlated with need for in-person assessment.
Project description:BackgroundWhen the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) eliminated the oral segment of the board-certification examination, it began requiring in-training assessments termed Clinical Skill Evaluations (CSEs).ObjectiveThis study describes the experience of residency program directors (PDs) with CSEs and identifies opportunities for improvement.MethodsA 23-question survey was administered electronically to neurology, child neurology, and psychiatry PDs assessing their CSE testing procedures in April 2019. Data from the ABPN preCERT® Credentialing System CSE was analyzed to corroborate the survey results.ResultsA total of 439 PDs were surveyed. The overall response rate was approximately 40% with a similar response across the 3 specialties. Overall, there was a strong enthusiasm for CSEs as they captured the essence of the physician-patient relationship. Most PDs encouraged trainees to attempt CSEs early in their training though the completion time frame varied by specialty. Approximately 57% of psychiatry residencies offered formal, in-person faculty training while less than one-fourth of neurology and child neurology programs offered such a program. Most PDs are interested in a faculty development course to ensure a standardized CSE testing process at their institution.ConclusionsThis survey confirmed earlier findings that CSEs are usually implemented early in the course of residency training and that most PDs think it captures the essence of the physician-patient relationship. While few residencies offer a CSE training course, there is widespread support for a formal approach to faculty development and this offers a specific opportunity for CSE improvement in the future.
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic presented many challenges for graduate medical education, including the need to quickly implement virtual residency interviews. We investigated how different programs approached these challenges to determine best practices.MethodsSurveys to solicit perspectives of program directors, program coordinators, and chief residents regarding virtual interviews were designed through an iterative process by two child neurology residency program directors. Surveys were distributed by email in May 2021. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics.ResultsResponses were received from 35 program directors and 34 program coordinators from 76 programs contacted. Compared with the 2019-2020 recruitment season, in 2020-2021, 14 of 35 programs received >10% more applications and most programs interviewed ≥12 applicants per position. Interview days were typically five to six hours long and were often coordinated with pediatrics interviews. Most programs (13/15) utilized virtual social events with residents, but these often did not allow residents to provide quality feedback about applicants. Program directors could adequately assess most applicant qualities but felt that virtual interviews limited their ability to assess applicants' interpersonal communication skills and to showcase special features of their programs. Most respondents felt that a combination of virtual and in-person interviewing should be utilized in the future.ConclusionsResidency program directors perceived some negative impacts of virtual interviewing on their recruitment efforts but in general felt that virtual interviews adequately replaced in-person interviews for assessing applicants. Most programs felt that virtual interviewing should be utilized in the future.
Project description:BackgroundMedical education, residency training, and the structure of child neurology residency training programs are evolving. We sought to evaluate how training program selection priorities of child neurology residency applicants have changed over time.MethodsAn electronic survey was sent to child neurology residents and practicing child neurologists via the Professors of Child Neurology distribution list in the summer of 2018. It was requested that the survey be disseminated to current trainees and alumni of the programs. The survey consisted of seven questions assessing basic demographics and a list of factors applicants consider when choosing a residency.ResultsThere were 284 responses with a higher representation of individuals matriculating into residency in the last decade. More recent medical school graduates had a lower probability of considering curriculum as an important factor for residency selection (odds ratio [OR], 0.746; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.568 to 0.98; P = 0.035) and higher priority placed on interaction with current residents over the course of the interview day (OR, 2.207; 95% CI, 1.486 to 3.278; P < 0.0001), sense of resident happiness and well-being (OR, 2.176; 95% CI, 1.494 to 3.169; P < 0.0001), and perception of city or geography of the residency program (OR, 1.710; 95% CI, 1.272 to 2.298; P < 0.001).ConclusionsOver time, child neurology residency applicants are putting more emphasis on quality of life factors over curriculum. To accommodate these changes, child neurology residency programs should prioritize interactions with residents during the interview process and resident wellness initiatives throughout residency training.
Project description:Ketogenic dietary therapies (KDTs) have been in use for refractory paediatric epilepsy for a century now. Over time, KDTs themselves have undergone various modifications to improve tolerability and clinical feasibility, including the Modified Atkins diet (MAD), medium chain triglyceride (MCT) diet and the low glycaemic index treatment (LGIT). Animal and observational studies indicate numerous benefits of KDTs in paediatric neurological conditions apart from their evident benefits in childhood intractable epilepsy, including neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder, rarer neurogenetic conditions such as Rett syndrome, Fragile X syndrome and Kabuki syndrome, neurodegenerative conditions such as Pelizaeus-Merzbacher disease, and other conditions such as stroke and migraine. A large proportion of the evidence is derived from individual case reports, case series and some small clinical trials, emphasising the vast scope for research in this avenue. The term 'neuroketotherapeutics' has been coined recently to encompass the rapid strides in this field. In the 100th year of its use for paediatric epilepsy, this review covers the role of the KDTs in non-epilepsy neurological conditions among children.
Project description:ObjectiveTo make evidence-based recommendations concerning the evaluation of the child with microcephaly.MethodsRelevant literature was reviewed, abstracted, and classified. RECOMMENDATIONS were based on a 4-tiered scheme of evidence classification.ResultsMicrocephaly is an important neurologic sign but there is nonuniformity in its definition and evaluation. Microcephaly may result from any insult that disturbs early brain growth and can be seen in association with hundreds of genetic syndromes. Annually, approximately 25,000 infants in the United States will be diagnosed with microcephaly (head circumference <-2 SD). Few data are available to inform evidence-based recommendations regarding diagnostic testing. The yield of neuroimaging ranges from 43% to 80%. Genetic etiologies have been reported in 15.5% to 53.3%. The prevalence of metabolic disorders is unknown but is estimated to be 1%. Children with severe microcephaly (head circumference <-3 SD) are more likely ( approximately 80%) to have imaging abnormalities and more severe developmental impairments than those with milder microcephaly (-2 to -3 SD; approximately 40%). Coexistent conditions include epilepsy ( approximately 40%), cerebral palsy ( approximately 20%), mental retardation ( approximately 50%), and ophthalmologic disorders ( approximately 20% to approximately 50%).RecommendationsNeuroimaging may be considered useful in identifying structural causes in the evaluation of the child with microcephaly (Level C). Targeted and specific genetic testing may be considered in the evaluation of the child with microcephaly who has clinical or imaging abnormalities that suggest a specific diagnosis or who shows no evidence of an acquired or environmental etiology (Level C). Screening for coexistent conditions such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and sensory deficits may also be considered (Level C). Further study is needed regarding the yield of diagnostic testing in children with microcephaly.
Project description:ObjectivesMore than a decade has passed since the last major workforce survey of child neurologists in the United States; thus, a reassessment of the child neurology workforce is needed, along with an inaugural assessment of a new related field, neurodevelopmental disabilities.MethodsThe American Academy of Pediatrics and the Child Neurology Society conducted an electronic survey in 2015 of child neurologists and neurodevelopmental disabilities specialists.ResultsThe majority of respondents participate in maintenance of certification, practice in academic medical centers, and offer subspecialty care. EEG reading and epilepsy care are common subspecialty practice areas, although many child neurologists have not had formal training in this field. In keeping with broader trends, medical school debts are substantially higher than in the past and will often take many years to pay off. Although a broad majority would choose these fields again, there are widespread dissatisfactions with compensation and benefits given the length of training and the complexity of care provided, and frustrations with mounting regulatory and administrative stresses that interfere with clinical practice.ConclusionsAlthough not unique to child neurology and neurodevelopmental disabilities, such issues may present barriers for the recruitment of trainees into these fields. Creative approaches to enhance the recruitment of the next generation of child neurologists and neurodevelopmental disabilities specialists will benefit society, especially in light of all the exciting new treatments under development for an array of chronic childhood neurologic disorders.
Project description:ObjectiveTo update the 2004 American Academy of Neurology/Child Neurology Society practice parameter on treatment of infantile spasms in children.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2002 to 2011 and searches of reference lists of retrieved articles were performed. Sixty-eight articles were selected for detailed review; 26 were included in the analysis. RECOMMENDATIONS were based on a 4-tiered classification scheme combining pre-2002 evidence and more recent evidence.ResultsThere is insufficient evidence to determine whether other forms of corticosteroids are as effective as adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) for short-term treatment of infantile spasms. However, low-dose ACTH is probably as effective as high-dose ACTH. ACTH is more effective than vigabatrin (VGB) for short-term treatment of children with infantile spasms (excluding those with tuberous sclerosis complex). There is insufficient evidence to show that other agents and combination therapy are effective for short-term treatment of infantile spasms. Short lag time to treatment leads to better long-term developmental outcome. Successful short-term treatment of cryptogenic infantile spasms with ACTH or prednisolone leads to better long-term developmental outcome than treatment with VGB.RecommendationsLow-dose ACTH should be considered for treatment of infantile spasms. ACTH or VGB may be useful for short-term treatment of infantile spasms, with ACTH considered preferentially over VGB. Hormonal therapy (ACTH or prednisolone) may be considered for use in preference to VGB in infants with cryptogenic infantile spasms, to possibly improve developmental outcome. A shorter lag time to treatment of infantile spasms with either hormonal therapy or VGB possibly improves long-term developmental outcomes.
Project description:BackgroundTo determine the exposure risk for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) during neurology practice. Neurological manifestations of COVID-19 are increasingly being recognized mandating high level of participation by neurologists.MethodsAn American Academy of Neurology survey inquiring about various aspects of COVID-19 exposure was sent to a random sample of 800 active American Academy of Neurology members who work in the United States. Use of second tier protection (1 or more including sterile gloves, surgical gown, protective goggles/face shield but not N95 mask) or maximum protection (N95 mask in addition to second tier protection) during clinical encounter with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients was inquired.ResultsOf the 81 respondents, 38% indicated exposure to COVID-19 at work, 1% at home, and none outside of work/home. Of the 28 respondents who did experience at least 1 symptom of COVID-19, tiredness (32%) or diarrhea (8%) were reported. One respondent tested positive out of 12 (17%) of respondents who were tested for COVID-19 within the last 2 weeks. One respondent received health care at an emergency department/urgent care or was hospitalized related to COVID-19. When seeing patients, maximum protection personal protective equipment was used either always or most of the times by 16% of respondents in outpatient setting and 56% of respondents in inpatient settings, respectively.ConclusionsThe data could enhance our knowledge of the factors that contribute to COVID-19 exposure during neurology practice in United States, and inform education and advocacy efforts to neurology providers, trainees, and patients in this unprecedented pandemic.