Disentangling nature from nurture in examining the interplay between parent-child relationships, ADHD, and early academic attainment.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is highly heritable and is associated with lower educational attainment. ADHD is linked to family adversity, including hostile parenting. Questions remain regarding the role of genetic and environmental factors underlying processes through which ADHD symptoms develop and influence academic attainment. METHOD: This study employed a parent-offspring adoption design (N = 345) to examine the interplay between genetic susceptibility to child attention problems (birth mother ADHD symptoms) and adoptive parent (mother and father) hostility on child lower academic outcomes, via child ADHD symptoms. Questionnaires assessed birth mother ADHD symptoms, adoptive parent (mother and father) hostility to child, early child impulsivity/activation, and child ADHD symptoms. The Woodcock-Johnson test was used to examine child reading and math aptitude. RESULTS: Building on a previous study (Harold et al., 2013, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(10), 1038-1046), heritable influences were found: birth mother ADHD symptoms predicted child impulsivity/activation. In turn, child impulsivity/activation (4.5 years) evoked maternal and paternal hostility, which was associated with children's ADHD continuity (6 years). Both maternal and paternal hostility (4.5 years) contributed to impairments in math but not reading (7 years), via impacts on ADHD symptoms (6 years). CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the importance of early child behavior dysregulation evoking parent hostility in both mothers and fathers, with maternal and paternal hostility contributing to the continuation of ADHD symptoms and lower levels of later math ability. Early interventions may be important for the promotion of child math skills in those with ADHD symptoms, especially where children have high levels of early behavior dysregulation.

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety.

Intravenous lidocaine is used widely for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery but it can be, and has been, fatal when used inappropriately and incorrectly. The risk-benefit ratio of i.v. lidocaine varies with type of surgery and with patient factors such as comorbidity (including pre-existing chronic pain). This consensus statement aims to address three questions. First, does i.v. lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and facilitate recovery? Second, is i.v. lidocaine safe? Third, does the fact that i.v. lidocaine is not licensed for this indication affect its use? We suggest that i.v. lidocaine should be regarded as a 'high-risk' medicine. Individual anaesthetists may feel that, in selected patients, i.v. lidocaine may be beneficial as part of a multimodal peri-operative pain management strategy. This approach should be approved by hospital medication governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be made with properly informed consent from the patient concerned. If i.v. lidocaine is used, we recommend an initial dose of no more than 1.5 mg.kg-1 , calculated using the patient's ideal body weight and given as an infusion over 10 min. Thereafter, an infusion of no more than 1.5 mg.kg-1 .h-1 for no longer than 24 h is recommended, subject to review and re-assessment. Intravenous lidocaine should not be used at the same time as, or within the period of action of, other local anaesthetic interventions. This includes not starting i.v. lidocaine within 4 h after any nerve block, and not performing any nerve block until 4 h after discontinuing an i.v. lidocaine infusion.

Utilising Genetically-Informed Research Designs to Better Understand Family Processes and Child Development: Implications for Adoption and Foster Care Focused Interventions.

Understanding the interplay between genetic factors and family environmental processes (e.g., inter-parental relationship quality, positive versus negative parenting practices) and children's mental health (e.g., anxiety, depression, conduct problems, ADHD) in the contexts of adoption and foster-care research and practice is critical for effective prevention and intervention programme development. Whilst evidence highlights the importance of family environmental processes for the mental health and well-being of children in adoption and foster care, there is relatively limited evidence of effective interventions specifically for these families. Additionally, family-based interventions not specific to the context of adoption and foster-care typically show small to medium effects, and even where interventions are efficacious, not all children benefit. One explanation for why interventions may not work well for some is that responses to intervention may be influenced by an individual's genetic make-up. This paper summarises how genetically-informed research designs can help disentangle genetic from environmental processes underlying psychopathology outcomes for children, and how this evidence can provide improved insights into the development of more effective preventative intervention targets for adoption and foster-care families. We discuss current difficulties in translating behavioural genetics research to prevention science, and provide recommendations to bridge the gap between behavioural genetics research and prevention science, with lessons for adoption and foster-care research and practice.

People, systems and safety: resilience and excellence in healthcare practice.

This article outlines recent developments in safety science. It describes the progression of three 'ages' of safety, namely the 'age of technology', the 'age of human factors' and the 'age of safety management'. Safety science outside healthcare is moving from an approach focused on the analysis and management of error ('Safety-1') to one which also aims to understand the inherent properties of safety systems that usually prevent accidents from occurring ('Safety-2'). A key factor in the understanding of safety within organisations relates to the distinction between 'work as imagined' and 'work as done'. 'Work as imagined' assumes that if the correct standard procedures are followed, safety will follow as a matter of course. However, staff at the 'sharp end' of organisations know that to create safety in their work, variability is not only desirable but essential. This positive adaptability within systems that allows good outcomes in the presence of both favourable and adverse conditions is termed resilience. We argue that clinical and organisational work can be made safer, not only by addressing negative outcomes, but also by fostering excellence and promoting resilience. We outline conceptual and investigative approaches for achieving this that include 'appreciative inquiry', 'positive deviance' and excellence reporting.