Acceptability and feasibility of screening with a pediatric care provider-led social determinants of health identification tool.

BACKGROUND: Complex social determinants of health may not be easily recognized by health care providers and pose a unique challenge in the vulnerable pediatric population where patients may not be able to advocate for themselves. The goal of this study was to examine the acceptability and feasibility of health care providers using an integrated brief pediatric screening tool in primary care and hospital settings. METHODS: The framework of the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) and Pediatric Intermed tools was used to inform the selection of items for the 9-item Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths-Pediatric Complexity Indicator (CANS-PCI). The tool consisted of three domains: biological, psychological, and social. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health care providers in pediatric medical facilities in Ottawa, Canada. A low inference and iterative thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze the qualitative interview data specific to acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS: Thirteen health care providers participated in interviews. Six overarching themes were identified: acceptability, logistics, feasibility, pros/cons, risk, and privacy. Overall, participants agreed that a routine, trained provider-led pediatric tool for the screening of social determinants of health is important (n = 10, 76.9%), acceptable (n = 11; 84.6%), and feasible (n = 7, 53.8%). INTERPRETATION: Though the importance of social determinants of health are widely recognized, there are limited systematic methods of assessing, describing, and communicating amongst health care providers about the biomedical and psychosocial complexities of pediatric patients. Based on this study's findings, implementation of a brief provider-led screening tool into pediatric care practices may contribute to this gap.

The pediatric inflammatory bowel disease INTERMED: A new clinical tool to assess psychosocial needs.

OBJECTIVE: The adult INTERMED is used to determine case complexity and psychosocial needs. We developed and validated a pediatric version of the INTERMED for children and adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and assessed its utility in predicting healthcare utilization. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of children (aged 8-17 y) with IBD (n = 148) and their parents, seen in a hospital-based clinic. Subjects completed semi-structured interviews that were scored on the 34 pIBD-INTERMED items. To assess inter-rater reliability, 40 interviews were videotaped and scored by a second assessor. Convergent and predictive validity were assessed by examining the relation of the pIBD-INTERMED to standardized measures of psychological, social, and family functioning, disease activity, and healthcare utilization. RESULTS: Correlational analyses supported the validity of all five pIBD-INTERMED domains with very good inter-rater reliability (median r = 0.87) and internal consistency (α = 0.91) for the total complexity index. Ratings of 2-3 on the pIBD-INTERMED "mental health/cognitive threat" item were associated with greater odds of behavior and social problems (CBCL-Internalizing scale OR = 7.27, 95% CI 2.17-24.36); CBCL-Externalizing scale OR = 24.79, 95% CI 5.00-122.84), depression (Children's Depression Inventory OR = 8.52, 95% CI 1.70-43.02) and anxiety (Multidimensional Anxiety for Children OR = 11.57, 95% CI 3.00-45.37). The pIBD-INTERMED complexity index added significantly to the prediction of healthcare utilization, beyond the contribution of disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: The pIBD-INTERMED is a reliable and valid tool for identifying psychosocial risks and needs of children with IBD. It can be used to guide planning of individualized care and enhance interdisciplinary pediatric IBD care.

The HEADS-ED: a rapid mental health screening tool for pediatric patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The American Academy of Pediatrics called for action for improved screening of mental health issues in the emergency department (ED). We developed the rapid screening tool home, education, activities/peers, drugs/alcohol, suicidality, emotions/behavior, discharge resources (HEADS-ED), which is a modification of "HEADS," a mnemonic widely used to obtain a psychosocial history in adolescents. The reliability and validity of the tool and its potential for use as a screening measure are presented. METHODS: ED patients presenting with mental health concerns from March 1 to May 30, 2011 were included. Crisis intervention workers completed the HEADS-ED and the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths-Mental Health tool (CANS MH) and patients completed the Children's Depression Inventory (CDI). Interrater reliability was assessed by using a second HEADS-ED rater for 20% of the sample. RESULTS: A total of 313 patients were included, mean age was 14.3 (SD 2.63), and there were 182 females (58.1%). Interrater reliability was 0.785 (P < .001). Correlations were computed for each HEADS-ED category and items from the CANS MH and the CDI. Correlations ranged from r = 0.17, P < .05 to r = 0.89, P < .000. The HEADS-ED also predicted psychiatric consult and admission to inpatient psychiatry (sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 87%; area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.82, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence to support the psychometric properties of the HEADS-ED. The study shows promising results for use in ED decision-making for pediatric patients with mental health concerns.

Evaluating psychiatric hospital admission decisions for children in foster care: an optimal classification tree analysis.

This study explored clinical and nonclinical predictors of inpatient hospital admission decisions across a sample of children in foster care over 4 years (N = 13,245). Forty-eight percent of participants were female and the mean age was 13.4 (SD = 3.5 years). Optimal data analysis (Yarnold & Soltysik, 2005) was used to construct a nonlinear classification tree model for predicting admission decisions. As expected, clinical variables such as suicidality, psychoticism, and dangerousness predicted psychiatric admissions; however, several variables that are not direct indications of acute psychiatric distress, such as the presence of family problems and the location of the hospital screening, impacted decision making in a subsample of cases. Further analyses indicated that the model developed in Year 1 reliably and consistently predicted admission decisions (with 64%-68% overall accuracy) across the next 3 years. Policy, research, and clinical implications are discussed.