Comparing impact on the family and insurance coverage in children with cerebral palsy and children with another special healthcare need.

BACKGROUND: Families and caregivers of children with special healthcare needs (CSHCN) often experience financial difficulties, have unmet physical and mental health needs, and are at increased risk of marital problems due to the stress caused by carrying for their child. Within the larger population of CHSCN, young people with cerebral palsy (CP) have more unmet needs due to the complexity and potential severity of the disability. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with differences in insurance coverage and impact on the family of children with CP and other CHSCN. METHODS: The data were taken from the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, which was designed to examine state- and national-level estimates of CSHCN. Three variables examined differences in insurance coverage between those children diagnosed with CP versus all other CSHCN: insurance coverage for the previous year, current insurance coverage, and adequacy of insurance coverage. Four variables representing different indicators of family impact were used to assess differences between children with CP versus all other CSHCN: out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare, family financial burden, hours per week that family members spent caring for the child, and impact on family work life. RESULTS: The results of this study showed significant differences between households with a child with CP and a child with another health special need in terms of insurance coverage, indicating a tendency of children with CP to be insured the entire year. As for the impact on the family in households with children with CP versus other CSHCN, there were significant differences in all four variables that were analysed. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence highlighting differences between the impact of caring for a child with CP and caring for other CSHCN. Caring for a child with CP has a significant impact on the family, despite insurance coverage.

Prehospital management of rapid atrial fibrillation: recommendations for treatment protocols.

The present study was completed to establish an epidemiological database defining prehospital rapid atrial fibrillation (RAF) and interventions given such patients in the hope of developing recommendations for further treatment protocols. On review of 4,749 paramedic run reports from a low-volume urban emergency medical services (EMS) system, 33 persons (0.69%) presented with RAF. Data collected included vital signs/ventricular rate, patient age, ambulance field times, patient chief complaint, prehospital interventions, efficacy of interventions, additional cardiac rhythms, iatrogenic complications, and patient past medical history. Neither intravenous (IV) diltiazem or electrical cardioversion were used within the 12-month period of this study. Symptomatic/supportive care consisting of observation (72.73%) and interventions (27.27%) with nitroglycerine, furosemide, aspirin, morphine, and/or IV fluid bolus therapy accounted for all prehospital treatment. Paramedics documented improvement in 100% of patients. No cases occurred in which RAF resulted in severe hemodynamic instability. No inappropriate use, point estimate (PE) [(0)/(33) (0.00% to 10.60%)], or unmet need, PE [(0)/(4,716) (0.00% to 0.08%)] of care was noted. The data presented in this study suggest that given similar EMS system characteristics, prehospital RAF is an infrequently encountered, predominantly hemodynamically stable cardiac arrhythmia, readily treatable with symptomatic/supportive care, and cautious observation. The prehospital application of adult advanced cardiac life support guidelines utilizing IV diltiazem and electrical cardioversion for the treatment of RAF may be unnecessary.