No abstract

OBJECTIVES: To improve the mental health (MH) referral process for children referred from primary care to community mental health clinics (CMHCs) by using a community-partnered approach.METHODS: Our partners were a multisite federally qualified health center and 2 CMHCs in Los Angeles County. We randomly assigned 6 federally qualified health center clinics to the intervention or as a control and implemented a newly developed telehealth-enhanced referral process (video orientation to the CMHC and a live videoconference CMHC screening visit) for all MH referrals from the intervention clinics. Our primary outcome was CMHC access defined by completion of the initial access point for referral (CMHC screening visit). We used multivariate logistic and linear regression to examine intervention impact on our primary outcome. To accommodate the cluster design, we used mixed-effect regression models.RESULTS: A total of 342 children ages 5 to 12 were enrolled; 86.5% were Latino, 61.7% were boys, and the mean age at enrollment was 8.6 years. Children using the telehealth-enabled referral process had 3 times the odds of completing the initial CMHC screening visit compared with children who were referred by using usual care procedures (80.49% vs 64.04%; adjusted odds ratio 3.02 [95% confidence interval 1.47 to 6.22]). Among children who completed the CMHC screening visit, intervention participants took 6.6 days longer to achieve it but also reported greater satisfaction with the referral system compared with controls. Once this initial access point in referral was completed, .80% of eligible intervention and control participants (174 of 213) went on to an MH visit.CONCLUSIONS: A novel telehealth-enhanced referral process developed by using a communitypartnered approach improved initial access to CMHCs for children referred from primary care.

Hypomineralisation or hypoplasia? IN BRIEF Provides general dental practitioners with an overview of the background and aetiology of enamel hypomineralisation and hypoplasia  Outlines the different characteristics and clinical variabilities between hypomineralisation and hypoplasia  Provides an understanding of how to diagnose hypomineralisation and hypoplasia and guide management ABSTRACTEnamel hypomineralisation is a qualitative defect, with reduced mineralisation resulting in discoloured enamel in a tooth of normal shape and size. Because the enamel is weaker, teeth can undergo post eruptive breakdown, resulting in missing enamel. Enamel hypoplasia is a quantitative defect of the enamel presenting as pits, grooves, missing enamel or smaller teeth. It can sometimes be difficult to differentiate between the two. In this review paper, we aim to explain the importance of differentiating between the two conditions, and how to manage patients presenting with enamel defects. HOW DOES ENAMEL FORM?Enamel is produced by specialised end-differentiated cells known as ameloblasts. 1 The formation of enamel can be separated into initial stages which involve secretion of matrix proteins such as amelogenin, ameloblastin and enamelin, and later stages of mineralization and maturation. 1

Background The “shared-care model” for patients with cancer involves care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists, with the goal of optimizing survivorship care. However, a high proportion of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors do not have a PCP. Study objectives were to increase the percentage of AYAs with a PCP documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) via the use of a best practice advisory (BPA) or “stopgap” intervention; to increase communication between providers by the number of routed clinic notes; and to assess oncology providers’ attitudes/beliefs about the model and intervention. Methods Data were collected for the 6 months before implementation of the BPA to determine the percentage of AYAs with a PCP and the number of notes routed to providers (time point 1 [T1]). The same data were collected at time point 2 (T2) after the BPA had been implemented for 6 months. Oncology providers participated in an education video module and an online survey at T1 and a survey at T2. Results At T1, 47.1% of 756 AYAs had a documented PCP in the EMR. At T2, the percentage increased to 55.1% (P<.002). The number of routed notes did not change significantly from T1 to T2. Providers that completed the intervention survey agreed/strongly agreed that the shared-care model is a desirable model of care (T1 = 86%; T2 = 93%) and that a BPA is useful for facilitating PCP referrals (T1 = 76%; T2 = 39%). Conclusions This BPA is feasible for increasing the percentage of AYAs with a PCP documented in the EMR and could potentially lead to increased PCP referral and communication among providers for the benefit of long-term survivorship care. Providers generally agree with the shared-care model; however, the BPA implementation requires modification.

A community partnered approach to care design utilizing telehealth for care coordination between clinics can potentially be used to address key challenges in MHC access for children.