Clinical effectiveness of the psychological therapy Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy in addition to usual care compared with assessment-enhanced usual care alone: a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Mental health difficulties are common in children and young people with chronic health conditions, but many of those in need do not access evidence-based psychological treatments. The study aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of integrated mental health treatment for children and young people with epilepsy, a common chronic health condition known to be associated with a particularly high rate of co-occurring mental health difficulties. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of participants aged 3-18 years, attending epilepsy clinics across England and Northern Ireland who met diagnostic criteria for a common mental health disorder. Participants were randomised (1:1; using an independent web-based system) to receive the Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy (MICE) in addition to usual care, or assessment-enhanced usual care alone (control). Children and young people in both groups received a full diagnostic mental health assessment. MICE was a modular psychological intervention designed to treat common mental health conditions in children and young people using evidence-based approaches such as cognitive behaviour therapy and behavioural parenting strategies. Usual care for mental health disorders varied by site but typically included referral to appropriate services. Participants, along with their caregivers, and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation but statisticians were masked until the point of analysis. The primary outcome, analysed by modified intention-to-treat, was the parent-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at 6 months post-randomisation. The study is complete and registered with ISRCTN (57823197). FINDINGS: 1401 young people were potentially deemed eligible for study inclusion. Following the exclusion of 531 young people, 870 participants were assessed for eligibility and completed the SDQ, and 480 caregivers provided consent for study inclusion between May 20, 2019, and Jan 31, 2022. Between Aug 28, 2019, and Feb 21, 2022, 334 participants (mean ages 10·5 years [SD 3·6] in the MICE group vs 10·3 [4·0] in control group at baseline) were randomly assigned to an intervention using minimisation balanced by age, primary mental health disorder, diagnosis of intellectual disability, and autistic spectrum disorder at baseline. 168 (50%) of the participants were female and 166 (50%) were male. 166 participants were randomly assigned to the MICE group and 168 were randomly assigned to the control group. At 6 months, the mean SDQ difficulties for the 148 participants in the MICE group was 17·6 (SD 6·3) and 19·6 (6·1) for the 148 participants in the control group. The adjusted effect of MICE was -1·7 (95% CI -2·8 to -0·5; p=0·0040; Cohen's d, 0·3). 14 (8%) patients in the MICE group experienced at least one serious adverse event compared with 24 (14%) in the control group. 68% percent of serious adverse events (50 events) were admission due to seizures. INTERPRETATION: MICE was superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving symptoms of emotional and behavioural difficulties in young people with epilepsy and common mental health disorders. The trial therefore shows that mental health comorbidities can be effectively and safely treated by a variety of clinicians, utilising an integrated intervention across ages and in the context of intellectual disability and autism. The evidence from this trial suggests that such a model should be fully embedded in epilepsy services and serves as a model for other chronic health conditions in young people. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and Epilepsy Research UK Endeavour Project Grant.

Training for a Career in Rural and Nonmetropolitan Surgery-A Practical Needs Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: The current shortage of surgeons in rural and smaller communities is predicted to get worse. In this study, we solicited practicing rural surgeons' opinions about the skill set needed in a rural practice in order to inform curriculum development for general surgery residents who intend to embark on rural careers. DESIGN: We developed an online survey consisting of demographic questions and closed- and open-ended questions regarding current practice environment and scope of practice. Priorities for training were identified using descriptive analyses of both the quantitative and qualitative data, including frequency of responses regarding specific skills training. PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed currently practicing surgeons who subscribe to the American College of Surgeons Rural Surgery listserv. RESULTS: 237 surgeons from 49 states and 1 Canadian territory responded; 60% of participants had been in practice for 20 or more years, and 70% did not pursue subspecialty training. Valuable skills identified for rural surgeons were: endoscopy, advanced laparoscopy, and basic non-general surgery subspecialty procedures. Regardless of years of practice or setting, respondents felt that rural experience during residency was highly valuable (82%) and overwhelmingly supported training future rural surgeons at residency programs with broad general surgery experiences and high case volumes with no or few fellows. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing rural surgeons identify endoscopy, basic non-general surgery subspecialty procedures, and advanced laparoscopy as key components of their current practice. These skills may not be strongly emphasized in traditional general surgery training programs. Surgical educators should focus on developing curricula that emphasize these areas in order to prepare residents for careers in rural surgery.

Association of Hospital Critical Access Status With Surgical Outcomes and Expenditures Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

IMPORTANCE: Critical access hospitals are a predominant source of care for many rural populations. Previous reports suggest these centers provide lower quality of care for common medical admissions. Little is known about the outcomes and costs of patients admitted for surgical procedures. OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical outcomes and associated Medicare payments at critical access hospitals vs non-critical access hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional retrospective review of 1,631,904 Medicare beneficiary admissions to critical access hospitals (n = 828) and non-critical access hospitals (n = 3676) for 1 of 4 common types of surgical procedures-appendectomy, 3467 for critical access and 151,867 for non-critical access; cholecystectomy, 10,556 for critical access and 573,435 for non-critical access; colectomy, 10,198 for critical access and 577,680 for non-critical access; hernia repair, 4291 for critical access and 300,410 for non-critical access-between 2009 and 2013. We compared risk-adjusted outcomes using a multivariable logistical regression that adjusted for patient factors (age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidities), admission type (elective, urgent, emergency), and type of operation. EXPOSURES: Undergoing surgical procedures at critical access vs non-critical access hospitals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day mortality, postoperative serious complications (eg, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, or acute renal failure and a length of stay >75th percentile). Hospital costs were assessed using price-standardized Medicare payments during hospitalization. RESULTS: Patients (mean age, 76.5 years; 56.2% women) undergoing surgery at critical access hospitals were less likely to have chronic medical problems, and they had lower rates of heart failure (7.7% vs 10.7%, P < .0001), diabetes (20.2% vs 21.7%, P < .001), obesity (6.5% vs 10.6%, P < .001), or multiple comorbid diseases (% of patients with ≥2 comorbidities; 60.4% vs 70.2%, P < .001). After adjustment for patient factors, critical access and non-critical access hospitals had no statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality rates (5.4% vs 5.6%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.03; P = .28). However, critical access vs non-critical access hospitals had significantly lower rates of serious complications (6.4% vs 13.9%; OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.32-0.39; P < .001). Medicare expenditures adjusted for patient factors and procedure type were lower at critical access hospitals than non-critical access hospitals ($14,450 vs $15,845; difference, -$1395, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing common surgical procedures, patients admitted to critical access hospitals compared with non-critical access hospitals had no significant difference in 30-day mortality rates, decreased risk-adjusted serious complication rates, and lower-adjusted Medicare expenditures, but were less medically complex.