Dermatological Needs in an Urban Free Health Care Setting.

Introduction A large proportion of the United States' underinsured population relies on free health clinics for their health care needs. With only a few free health clinics nationwide hosting specialty clinics, a small subset of which are dermatology clinics, there is a dearth of information in the literature on which dermatological pathologies and treatment modalities are most common in this setting. The purpose of this study was to establish the most common dermatological conditions and treatments in the free health care setting as well as understand which facets of care need improvement. Methods A total of 57 patients with dermatological findings were identified at an urban student-run free health clinic in the southern United States in the past two years (2019-2021). Information reviewed for each patient included general demographics, chief complaint, medical/surgical history, treatments/procedures required for each visit, treatments/procedures available for each visit, referrals, and follow-up rate. Qualitative analysis was performed.  Results The median age of the patients that presented with dermatological findings was 40 while the most common ethnicities were white (26.2%), Hispanic/Latino (28.6%), and black (28.6%). The most common chief complaints were rashes and cysts with a majority (63.2%) of these patients presenting to this particular clinic for the first time. Seven patients (12.3%) were unable to receive treatment due to expense, procedure unavailability, or an unknown reason. The most common treatment prescribed included a topical steroid. A majority (71.9%) of the patients were unable to follow up as scheduled. A majority of patients (81.2%) that were able to follow up were adherent to their prescribed medication. Conclusion Although dermatological conditions are plentiful in the free health care setting, the literature currently contains no information regarding this topic. This may be due to low patient follow-up rates and inadequately charted outcomes on often outdated electronic health records. In order to best care for dermatology patients in this setting, it is necessary to understand the barriers to care and available treatment options.

A comparison of characteristics, developmental disorders and motor progression between children with and without developmental coordination disorder.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) have difficulty in the development of motor coordination and with learning new motor skills. Studies demonstrate that children with DCD differ in terms of the nature and severity of their motor difficulties, the incidence of co occurring conditions and family background. However, little is known whether these profiles may relate to motor progression over time. The aim of this study was to describe the profiles of children with and without DCD and track motor progression over time. METHOD: The characteristics of thirty-four 7-14 year old children (M = 10.07, 85.3% boys) with and without DCD were compared and their motor progression monitored over a two academic years. DCD was identified using DSM5 criteria. The Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2) was used to classify children as TD (≥25th percentile), having moderate motor coordination difficulties (6-16th percentile) or severe motor coordination difficulties (≤ 5th percentile). The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test - 2 (KBIT-2) was used to measure full scale IQ. Parent questionnaires were used to gather information on socio economic status and co occurrence of other developmental disorders. We used ANOVA to assess whether there were differences in characteristics between the TD children, children with severe motor coordination difficulties and children with moderate motor coordination difficulties. Linear mixed effect modelling was used to estimate any change in motor performance over time and whether this differed between the three groups of children. RESULTS: Children with severe motor coordination difficulties had distinct profiles in motor and non-motor domains, lower IQ and a greater likelihood of having associated characteristics of 2 or more developmental disorders. We found significant differences between the poor motor performance of the severe group compared to the other two groups. Longitudinal analyses revealed stable, persistent and lower motor competence for the severe group. The rate of change in motor proficiency for the typical and severe groups was similar. However, the group with moderate motor difficulties gained on average more points per week compared to the typical group and achieved motor scores in the typically developing range over time. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to compare the characteristics and rate of motor progression of children with and without DCD using different motor proficiency cut off scores. The children with severe motor coordination difficulties progressed at the same rate as typically developing peers but remained in the severe group over time, whereas the children with moderate motor coordination difficulties caught up to TDC. The results indicate that different intervention may be required according to the nature and severity of the characteristics in both the motor and non-motor domains of children with DCD.

Intervention in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: the role of parents and teachers.

BACKGROUND: Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) are a heterogeneous group who have a marked impairment in the performance of functional skills. Provision for these children is usually made via a paediatrician through occupational or physiotherapy though, with a prevalence rate of 5%, regular provision is not possible due to limited professional resources. AIMS: The study aimed to determine the extent to which parents and teachers, with guidance, can assist in the management of children with DCD; whether children with DCD are helped in this way and how this may contribute to our understanding of the condition. SAMPLE: Thirty-one children with DCD aged 7 to 9 years participated in the study. METHODS: Following assessment, individual profiles were developed and each week teachers and parents were given guidelines for working with the children and each child had three to four sessions a week lasting approximately for 20 minutes. In Phase 1, one group of children worked with teachers and the other group worked with parents. In Phase 2, the two groups of children swapped over. The children were assessed regularly throughout the project using the Movement ABC, together with diaries and comments from teachers and parents. RESULTS: At the end of the 40-week study, 27 children showed significant improvement in their motor skills. CONCLUSIONS: Both teachers and parents were able to provide effective intervention for the majority of the children. It is possible that the children who did not improve have difficulties that are of a more complex type which require more specialist therapy to meet their need.