Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterized by challenges in social interaction and communication and the presence of restricted interests and repetitive behaviors. The importance of early detection of ASD and subsequent early intervention is well documented. Efforts have been made over the years to clarify ASD diagnostic criteria and develop predictive, accurate screening tools and evidence-based, standardized diagnostic instruments to aid in the identification of ASD. In this article, we review the most recent changes in ASD diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, summarize evidence-based instruments for ASD screening and diagnostic evaluations as well as the assessment of co-occurring conditions in ASD, the impact of COVID-19 on ASD assessment, and directions for future research in the field of ASD assessment.

Impact of Covid-19 on breast cancer stage at discovery, and time to treatment in Cote d'Or, France.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and ensuing overcrowding in the French health system, management of patients with COVID-19 was given priority over that of patients with other pathologies, including chronic diseases. The aim of this study was to study the impact of COVID-19 on the stage of discovery of cancers diagnosed in the context of an organized breast cancer screening programme, as well as the impact on time to treatment. All women diagnosed with cancer in the Côte d'Or via organized breast cancer screening (first or second reading) from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020 were included in this study. Using data from pathological laboratories, clinical centers, and the breast and gynecological cancer registry of the Côte d'Or, France, we collected socio-demographic, clinical and treatment data on all patients. We compared data from the year 2019 (before-Covid) with the year 2020 (Covid). We did not observe a significant difference in the stage of breast cancer at discovery, or in time to treatment. However, the number of invasive cancers and the clinical size of in situ cancers both increased in 2020. Although these results are reassuring, continued monitoring is needed to determine the downstream effects of the pandemic.

Telehealth Autism Diagnostic Assessments With Children, Young People, and Adults: Qualitative Interview Study With England-Wide Multidisciplinary Health Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (hereafter, autism) is a common neurodevelopmental condition. Core traits can range from subtle to severe and fluctuate depending on context. Individuals can present for diagnostic assessments during childhood or adulthood. However, waiting times for assessment are typically lengthy, and many individuals wait months or even years to be seen. Traditionally, there has been a lack of standardization between services regarding how many and which multidisciplinary health professionals are involved in the assessment and the methods (diagnostic tools) that are used. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected routine service provision because of stay-at-home mandates and social distancing guidelines. Autism diagnostic services have had to adapt, such as by switching from conducting assessments in person to doing these fully via telehealth (defined as the use of remote technologies for the provision of health care) or using blended in-person or telehealth methods. OBJECTIVE: This study explored health professionals' experiences of and perspectives about conducting telehealth autism diagnostic assessments, including barriers and facilitators to this, during the COVID-19 pandemic; potential telehealth training and supervision needs of health professionals; how the quality and effectiveness of telehealth autism diagnostic services can be enhanced; and experiences of delivering postdiagnostic support remotely. METHODS: A total of 45 health professionals, working in varied settings across England, participated in one-off, in-depth semistructured qualitative interviews. These were conducted via videoconferencing or telephone. Altogether, participants represented 7 professional disciplines (psychiatry, medicine, psychology, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, nursing, and social work). The data were then analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Thematic analysis indicated the following 7 themes: practicalities of telehealth, telehealth autism diagnostic assessments, diagnostic conclusions, clinical considerations, postdiagnostic support, future ways of working, and health professionals' experiences and needs. Overall, telehealth autism diagnostic assessments were deemed by many participants to be convenient, flexible, and efficient for some patients, families, and health professionals. However, not all patients could be assessed in this way, for example, because of digital poverty, complex clinical presentation, or concerns about risk and safeguarding. Working remotely encouraged innovation, including the development of novel assessment measures. However, some participants expressed significant concerns about the validity and reliability of remotely assessing social communication conditions. CONCLUSIONS: A shift to telehealth meant that autism diagnostic services remained operational during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this method of working has potentially affected the parity of service, with people presenting with clinical complexity having to potentially wait longer to be seen or given a diagnostic opinion. There is also a lack of standardization in the provision of services. Further research should identify evidence-based ways of enhancing the timeliness, accessibility, and robustness of the autism diagnostic pathway, as well as the validity and reliability of telehealth methods.

Autism Diagnostic Assessments With Children, Adolescents, and Adults Prior to and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Professionals.

Background: Access to timely high quality autism diagnostic assessments has traditionally been patchy; many individuals wait months, if not years, for an appointment. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has likely impacted autism diagnostic services. This study investigated professionals' experiences of, and thoughts about: (1) how autism diagnostic assessments were conducted before the pandemic; (2) adaptations to service provision because of the pandemic; and (3) challenges, risks, advantages and opportunities associated with autism assessments conducted via online platforms (telehealth). Method: Fifty-two professionals, based in different autism diagnostic services and working with children, adolescents and/or adults, completed an online cross-sectional survey in August and September 2020. This comprised demographic questions (about professionals' roles and experiences), and closed and open questions about service provision and telehealth autism assessments. Results: There was substantial variation in how autism assessments were conducted prior to and during the pandemic; for example, in relation to the number of professionals involved in the assessment and types of structured, semi-structured and unstructured measures used to conduct this. Fifty-two percent of participants (n = 27) reported some service disruption (e.g., full closure, substantial reduction in provision, and/or pausing of in person appointments). Waiting times for assessment had become longer for 58% of services (n = 30), due to pandemic-related disruption. Six themes emerged from thematic analysis of open responses: (1) the autism diagnostic pathway, pre-pandemic; (2) initial impact of the pandemic on service delivery; (3) conducting autism assessments during the pandemic; (4) working remotely; (5) improving service design and delivery; and (6) post-diagnostic support. Views about the accessibility, validity, and reliability of conducting telehealth autism assessments were polarized. Some participants considered this efficient, flexible, and adequate; others viewed this as unethical and inappropriate. What constitutes good practice in telehealth autism assessments remains unclear, but there is a general openness to using this method (potentially in a hybrid telehealth-in person model), provided rigor and standardization are enhanced. Conclusions: The pandemic has potentially compounded existing bottlenecks to the autism diagnostic pathway. Future research should seek to improve timeliness, standardization, accessibility and robustness of this pathway, and the validity and reliability of telehealth autism assessments.

Patterns of Pretreatment Diagnostic Assessment in Patients Treated with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Special Characteristics in the COVID Pandemic and Influence on Outcomes.

The pandemic raised a discussion about the postponement of medical interventions for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We analyzed the characteristics of pretreatment diagnostic assessment in the pandemic and the influence of diagnostic assessment on outcomes. A total of 96 patients with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for NSCLC were included. The number of patients increased from mean 0.9 (2012-2019) to 1.45 per month in the COVID era (p < 0.05). Pandemic-related factors (contact reduction, limited intensive care unit resources) might have influenced clinical decision making towards SBRT. The time from pretreatment assessment (multidisciplinary tumor board decision, bronchoscopy, planning CT) to SBRT was longer during the COVID period (p < 0.05). Reduced services, staff shortage, or appointment management to mitigate infection risks might explain this finding. Overall survival, progression-free survival, locoregional progression-free survival, and distant progression-free survival were superior in patients who received a PET/CT scan prior to SBRT (p < 0.05). This supports that SBRT guidelines advocate the acquisition of a PET/CT scan. A longer time from PET/CT scan/conventional staging to SBRT (<10 vs. ≥10 weeks) was associated with worse locoregional control (p < 0.05). The postponement of diagnostic or therapeutic measures in the pandemic should be discussed cautiously. Patient- and tumor-related features should be evaluated in detail.

D-Dimer Tests in the Emergency Department: Current Insights.

In the Emergency Medicine setting, D-dimer is currently employed in the diagnostic assessment of suspected venous thromboembolism and aortic syndrome. The nonspecific symptoms reported by patients, like chest pain, dyspnea or syncope, uncover a wide range of differential diagnosis, spanning from mild to life-threatening conditions. Therefore, we assumed the perspective of the Emergency Physician and, in this narrative review, we reported a brief presentation of the epidemiology of these symptoms and the characteristics of patients, in whom we could suspect the aforementioned pathologies. We also reported in which patients D-dimer gives useful information. In fact, when the probability of the disease is high, the D-dimer level is futile. On the contrary, given the low specificity of the test, when the probability of the disease is very low, a false-positive value of the D-dimer only increases the risk of overtesting. Patients with low to moderate probability really benefit from the D-dimer testing, in order to prevent the execution of expensive and potentially dangerous imaging tests. In the second part of the review, we focused on the prognostic value of the test in septic patients. The early prognostic stratification of septic patients remains a challenge for the Emergency Physician, in the absence of a definite biomarker or score to rely on. Therefore, we need several parameters for the early identification of patients at risk of an adverse prognosis and the D-dimer may play a role in this demanding task. SARS COVID-19 patients represent an emerging reality, where the role of the D-dimer for prognostic stratification could be relevant. In fact, in patients with severe forms of this disease, the D-dimer reaches very high values, which appear to parallel the course of respiratory failure. Whether the test may add useful information for the management of these patients remains to be determined.

Measuring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up care in Ontario, Canada: A provincial, population-based study.

It is essential to quantify the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening, including for vulnerable sub-populations, to inform the development of evidence-based, targeted pandemic recovery strategies. We undertook a population-based retrospective observational study in Ontario, Canada to assess the impact of the pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic services, and assess whether patterns of cancer screening service use and diagnostic delay differ across population sub-groups during the pandemic. Provincial health databases were used to identify age-eligible individuals who participated in one or more of Ontario's breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening programs from January 1, 2019-December 31, 2020. Ontario's screening programs delivered 951,000 (-41%) fewer screening tests in 2020 than in 2019 and volumes for most programs remained more than 20% below historical levels by the end of 2020. A smaller percentage of cervical screening participants were older (50-59 and 60-69 years) during the pandemic when compared with 2019. Individuals in the oldest age groups and in lower-income neighborhoods were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening test during the pandemic, and individuals with a high probability of living on a First Nation reserve were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal fecal test. Ongoing monitoring and management of backlogs must continue. Further evaluation is required to identify populations for whom access to cancer screening and diagnostic care has been disproportionately impacted and quantify impacts of these service disruptions on cancer incidence, stage, and mortality. This information is critical to pandemic recovery efforts that are aimed at achieving equitable and timely access to cancer screening-related care.