Search

Background: A joint statement from two federal agencies in the United States calls for coordination and collaboration between programs serving families of infants and toddlers who are at risk or developmentally delayed or disabled U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Policy guidance: Joint statement on collaboration and coordination of the MIECHV and IDEA Part C programs. (2017). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. ED/HHS Joint Guidance Document: Collaboration and Coordination of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part C Programs. Young Native American children living on tribal lands in this country are currently eligible for two federal programs associated with these agencies which overlap in mission and implementation. Purpose: This paper outlines potential strategies for creating a more seamless system of services for tribal families involving more centralized intake processes and procedures, cross training of staff to work across programs, and adopting more unifying approaches to program implementation. Conclusion: A streamlined system of services will result in interventions that better support family and child outcomes while reducing duplication of services, consolidating the limited number of qualified professionals available to provide services, and increasing convenience and cultural attunement of services to Native American families currently participating in both programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the objective reasons for the growing need for qualified medical services, especially in the context of pandemics, wars, disasters, and shortages of medical staff. The directions of development of robotics in medicine are analyzed, leading to the conclusion that the use of intelligent collaborative (i.e., interacting with humans) robotics in medicine is possible and appropriate. Robot assistants can perform many auxiliary operations, which will help relieve the workload of middle and junior medical staff, and, if necessary, replace them when performing such operations. The article outlines some of the main directions in which the authors believe the development of collaborative medical robotics should occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The allocation of resident physicians to clinical rotations presents a complex challenge that requires balancing multiple objectives with the goals of providing optimal patient care, maintaining adequate departmental staffing, and maximizing residents' training experience. While adhering to governing guidelines and training regulations, these physicians must comply with curricular milestones and educational goals for progression that must be achieved within specific time constraints. This manuscript reports on how to create annual master rotation schedules to meet the training requirements for 60 residents, while addressing the requirements detailed above. Methods: Trainees in the field of Emergency Medicine have to meet variable essential annual curricula requirements. Methods of preparing rotations in different Emergency Departments are presented which usually need early planning to ensure the best coordination and number allocation among the different internal and external collaborative departments. This off-institution and off-service external rotation is an educational necessity regulated by the Saudi Commission of Health Sciences to maximize residents' exposure and meet the expected educational milestones unique to Emergency Medicine training. Results: We report how to create annual master rotation schedules to meet the training requirements for 60 Emergency Medicine residents, while maintaining steady adequate departmental staffing and accommodating the different external rotation capacities, a task that is usually handled by the chief residents and program director. Although some parts of this process can be performed by using scheduling software or with particular decision support management systems, many steps are still filtered and checked manually. External circumstances mandate changes in schedules that require last-minute changes which may overrule training restrictions and make them unfeasible. Conclusion: To create such an agile schedule, we maintain a standardized template with preset blocks and rotations. Residents can choose the most suitable track that meets their preference for year-long rotation blocks. Thus, we minimize the individual variability in the preset allocations, guarantee an even distribution, give equal chances to each resident to accommodate and approximate their individual preferences, and decrease the overall workload and time consumed annually. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Sexual violence (SV) and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) are common in the U. S. and have strong associations with negative health and wellbeing outcomes. Manhood 2.0 is the first U.S. program designed for community settings to build bystander skills while also challenging harmful gender norms. A cluster-randomized trial comparing Manhood 2.0 to Job Skills, a job readiness training control condition, demonstrated that it is a promising strategy to prevent sexual violence and adolescent relationship abuse. Such community-based interventions may be particularly relevant in lower resource urban settings, and the costs of such prevention programs have not been considered previously. Methods: The aim of the present study is to perform systematic and standardized cost calculations associated with implementing Manhood 2.0 among adolescent males. In addition, this study provides detailed cost information of the community-based intervention program, as well as costs associated with implementing the Job Skills control program. Program implementation data were recorded throughout the study period (2015–2019) by the Manhood 2.0 study team. Results: The cost of implementing Manhood 2.0 is $4,771 per complete round of program delivery and $451 per participant, which is approximately the same cost as the control Job Skills program ($4,432 and $453 per participant). The marginal cost per additional round of Manhood 2.0 program is $3,682. Conclusion: Implementation of a community-based program requires substantial resources and collaborations with community partners especially in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. This study provides a snapshot of the cost information of a community-based intervention program from the implementing agency's perspective, which is essential in helping decision-makers understand the costs they will incur by implementing prevention programs and ensuring program feasibility and sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]