Comprehensive care programmes for children with medical complexity.

BACKGROUND: Children with medical complexity (CMC) represent a small, but growing, proportion of all children. Regardless of their underlying diagnosis, by definition, all CMC have similar functional limitations and high healthcare needs. It has been suggested that improving aspects of healthcare delivery for CMC improves health- and quality of life-related outcomes for children and their families and reduces healthcare-related expenditure. As a result, dedicated comprehensive care programmes have been established at many hospitals to meet the needs of CMC; however, it is unclear if such programmes are effective. OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to assess the effectiveness of comprehensive care programmes that aim to improve care coordination and other aspects of health care for CMC and to assess whether the effectiveness of such programmes differs according to the programme setting and structure. We aimed to assess their effectiveness in relation to child and parent health, functioning, and quality of life, quality of care, number of healthcare encounters, unmet healthcare needs, and total healthcare-related costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL in May 2023. We also searched reference lists, trial registries, and the grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies were included. Studies that compared enrolment in a comprehensive care programme with non-enrolment in such a programme/treatment as usual were included. Participants were children that met the criteria for the definition of CMC, which is: having (i) a chronic condition, (ii) functional limitations, (iii) increased health and other service needs, and (iv) increased healthcare costs. Studies that included the following types of outcomes were included: health; quality of care; utilisation, coverage and access; resource use and costs; equity; and adverse outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias in each included study, and evaluated the certainty of evidence according to GRADE criteria. Where possible, data were represented in forest plots and pooled. We were unable to undertake a meta-analysis for comparisons and outcomes, so we used a structured synthesis approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with a total of 912 CMC as participants. All included studies were randomised controlled trials conducted in hospitals in the USA or Canada. Participants varied across the included studies; however, all four studies included children with complex and chronic illness and high healthcare needs. While the primary aim of the intervention was similar across all four studies, the components of the interventions differed: in the four studies, the intervention involved some element of care coordination; in two of the studies, it involved the child receiving care from a multidisciplinary team, while in one study, the intervention was primarily centred on access to an advanced practice nurse care coordinator and another study involved nurse a practitioner-paediatrician dyad partnering with families. The risk of bias in the four studies varied across domains, with issues primarily relating to the lack of blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors, inadequate allocation concealment, and incomplete outcome data. Comprehensive care for CMC compared to usual care may make little to no difference to child health, functioning, and quality of life at 12 or 24 months (three studies with 404 participants) and we assessed the evidence for the outcomes in this category (child health-related quality of life and functional status) as being of low certainty. For CMC, comprehensive care probably makes little or no difference to parent health, functioning, and quality of life compared to usual care at 12 months (one study with 117 participants) and we assessed the evidence for this outcome as being of moderate certainty. Comprehensive care for CMC compared to usual care may slightly improve child and family satisfaction with, and perceptions of, care and service delivery at 12 months (three studies with 453 participants); however, we assessed the evidence for these outcomes as being of low certainty. For CMC, comprehensive care probably makes little or no difference to the number of healthcare encounters (emergency department visits) and the number of hospitalised days (hospital admissions) compared to usual care at 12 months (three studies with 668 participants), and we assessed the evidence for these outcomes as being of moderate certainty. Three of the included studies (668 participants) reported cost outcomes and had conflicting results, with one study reporting significantly lower healthcare costs at 12 months in the intervention group compared to the control group, one reporting no differences between groups, and the other study reporting a greater increase in total healthcare costs in the intervention group compared to the control group. Overall, comprehensive care may make little or no difference to overall healthcare costs in CMC; however, the methods used to measure total healthcare costs varied across studies and the certainty of the evidence relating to this outcome is low. No studies assessed the costs to the family. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review should be treated with caution due to the limited amount and quality of the published research that was available to be included. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for the effectiveness of comprehensive care for CMC ranged from low to moderate across outcomes and there is currently insufficient evidence on which to draw strong conclusions. There is a need for more high-quality randomised trials with consistency of the target population and intervention components, methods of reporting outcomes, and follow-up periods, as well as full cost analyses, taking into account both costs to the family and costs to the healthcare system.

Trial of a developmental screening tool in remote Australian Aboriginal communities: a cautionary tale.

AIM: To trial the Brigance developmental screening tool as an instrument for identifying Australian Aboriginal children at risk of developmental disability and requiring diagnostic developmental assessment. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of Australian Aboriginal children, aged 3-7 years, resident in three remote communities in the Northern Territory. Following informed consent, children were screened by a paediatrician using the Brigance screen. RESULTS: There were 195 children identified as eligible, and 124 (64%) participated. All children screened, scored below the cut-off for detecting children likely to have developmental disabilities or academic delays. Furthermore, all children scored below the at-risk cut-offs that indicate high probability of disabilities in at-risk children. CONCLUSIONS: The Brigance screen identified all children in these high-risk Aboriginal communities as well behind their age peers. Language and cultural relevance, and the method of administration limit the use of this screening tool. However, we cannot ignore the uniformly poor performance on a mainstream tool used with children expected to succeed in a mainstream educational setting. Recommendations include adapting an appropriate instrument to guide developmental surveillance and monitoring in remote Australian Aboriginal communities. This study further supports the pressing need for quality early childhood services that address the significant risk confronting Aboriginal children and prepare them in a way that ensures school and future success.