Search

Objective: To understand how methylphenidate (MPH) is used in youth with traumatic brain injury (TBI) during inpatient pediatric rehabilitation. Setting: Inpatient pediatric rehabilitation. Participants: In total, 234 children with TBI; 62 of whom received MPH and 172 who did not. Patients were on average 11.6 years of age (range, 2 months to 21 years); 88 of 234 were female; the most common mechanism of injury was motor vehicle collision (49%); median (IQR) acute hospital length of stay (LOS) and inpatient rehabilitation LOS were 16 (10-29) and 23 (14-39), respectively; 51 of 234 were in a disorder of consciousness cognitive state at time of inpatient rehabilitation admission. Design: Multicenter, retrospective medical record review. Main Measure(s): Patient demographic data, time to inpatient pediatric rehabilitation admission (TTA), cognitive state, MPH dosing (mg/kg/day). Results: Patients who received MPH were older (P =.011); TTA was significantly longer in patients who received MPH than those who did not (P =.002). The lowest recorded dose range by weight was 0.05 to 0.89 mg/kg/d, representing an 18-fold difference; the weight-based range for the maximum dose was 0.11 to 0.97 mg/kg/d, a 9-fold difference. Patients in lower cognitive states at admission (P =.001) and at discharge (P =.030) were more likely to receive MPH. Five patients had side effects known to be associated with MPH; no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: This multicenter study indicates that there is variable use of MPH during acute inpatient rehabilitation for children with TBI. Children who receive MPH tend to be older with lower cognitive states. Dosing practices are likely consistent with underdosing. Clinical indications for MPH use during inpatient pediatric rehabilitation should be better defined. The use of MPH, as well as its combination with other medications and treatments, during inpatient rehabilitation needs to be further explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychologists have been applying neurorehabilitation models of care for many years. These practitioners come from different training backgrounds and use a variety of titles to refer to themselves despite considerable overlap in practice patterns, professional identification, and salary. Titles like 'neurorehabilitation psychologist' and 'rehabilitation neuropsychologist' are sometimes used by practitioners in the field to indicate their specialty area, but are not formally recognized by the American Psychological Association, the American Board of Professional Psychology, or by training councils in clinical neuropsychology (CN) or rehabilitation psychology (RP). Neither the CN or RP specialties alone fully address or define the competencies, skill sets, and clinical experiences required to provide high quality, comprehensive neurorehabilitation psychology services across settings. Therefore, irrespective of practice setting, we believe that both clinical neuropsychologists and rehabilitation psychologists should ideally have mastery of specific, overlapping competencies and a philosophical approach to care that we call neurorehabilitation psychology in this paper. Trainees and early career professionals who aspire to practice in this arena are often pressured to prioritize either CN or RP pathways over the other, with anxiety about perceived and real potential for falling short in their training goals. In the absence of an explicit training path or formal guidelines, these professionals emerge only after the opportunity, privilege, or frank luck of working with specific mentors or in exceptional patient care settings that lend themselves to obtaining integrated competencies in neurorehabilitation psychology. This paper reflects the efforts of 7 practitioners to preliminarily define the practice and philosophies of neurorehabilitation psychology, the skill sets and competencies deemed essential for best practice, and essential training pathway elements. We propose competencies designed to maximize the integrity of training and provide clear guideposts for professional development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professional challenges have been documented in broad surveys of neuropsychologists. While previous surveyors have included pediatric neuropsychologists, few, if any, have specifically examined practices among those who primarily work in pediatric inpatient rehabilitation settings. Therefore, the aim of this study was to survey neuropsychologists in this setting. Thirty neuropsychologists from the U.S. and one from Canada that work in inpatient pediatric rehabilitation participated in an online survey. Most respondents (83.3%) billed for their inpatient time. Sixty-four percent indicated that payor type (private vs. public) affected services a moderate amount to a lot; this was primarily due to payor's influence on length of stay. Most providers had productivity expectations (66.7%). Among those that had productivity expectations, three-quarters used "hours billed;" 37.5% were solely or additionally tracked by relative value units (RVUs). The majority of respondents conducted some type of clinical data collection, usually for research purposes. With respect to professional identity, most respondents indicated positivity about their role. The top challenges endorsed were related to workload/ability to meet the patients' needs and billing/productivity. Issues related to billing and payor may influence aspects of pediatric inpatient rehabilitation neuropsychological care. Managing challenges related to billing and the time demands associated with providing inpatient services were top concerns for many respondents. Most sites surveyed were involved in data collection, usually for research purposes; increased data collection efforts are needed to aid with program development and evaluation and to demonstrate the added value of neuropsychological services from a patient care perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuropsychologists working in a pediatric neurorehabilitation setting provide care for children and adolescents with acquired brain injuries (ABI) and play a vital role on the interdisciplinary treatment team. This role draws on influences from the field of clinical neuropsychology and its pediatric subspecialty, as well as rehabilitation psychology. This combination of specialties is uniquely suited for working with ABI across the continuum of recovery. ABI recovery often involves a changing picture that spans across stages of recovery (e.g., disorders of consciousness, confusional state, acute cognitive impairment), where each stage presents with distinctive characteristics that warrant a specific evidence-based approach. Assessment and intervention are used reciprocally to inform diagnostics, treatment, and academic planning, and to support patient and family adjustment. Neuropsychologists work with the interdisciplinary teams to collect and integrate data related to brain injury recovery and use this data for treatment planning and clinical decision making. These approaches must often be adapted and adjusted in real time as patients recover, demanding a dynamic expertise that is currently not supported through formal training curriculum or practice guidelines. This paper outlines the roles and responsibilities of pediatric rehabilitation neuropsychologists across the stages of ABI recovery with the goal of increasing awareness in order to continue to develop and formalize this role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuropsychologists in inpatient pediatric rehabilitation settings collaborate with an interdisciplinary team to educate, evaluate, and provide intervention to patients with acquired brain injury and their families, but there are no known studies that describe or define these clinical services. Thirty-one neuropsychologists in pediatric inpatient rehabilitation settings completed an online survey. Neuropsychologists (68.2% female; 86.4% with PhD versus PsyD) from the U.S. and Canada, who represented 22 pediatric inpatient rehabilitation sites comprised the final sample. Most sites (63.6%) were embedded within medical centers, with providers dedicating 2 to 32 hours (M = 14.25, SD = 9.26) weekly to onsite inpatient rehabilitation efforts. Providers most often saw patients with traumatic brain injury and other acquired brain injuries, including stroke and brain tumor. Trainees from various levels, most commonly post-doctoral fellows, provided clinical services on inpatient units, many with some degree of independence. Clinical practices that were standard across all or most sites included targeted discharge evaluations, serial cognitive monitoring, neuropsychology consultation to rehabilitation and non-rehabilitation units, and follow-up clinics. Provision of services was influenced by multiple factors including patient diagnosis, timing of return to school, inpatient census, and payor's effect on length of stay. Findings highlight many programmatic consistencies across sites and serve as an important initial step to guiding pediatric neuropsychology providers seeking to understand the current landscape of clinical care. Future efforts are needed to establish a true clinical guideline for practice. Although preliminary, data also support establishment of neuropsychology training programs, justify administrative resources, and serve to educate recipients of neuropsychology services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]