Search

Children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and prescribed pharmacotherapy require ongoing regular follow-up for many years. Recent literature outlining the role of primary care in the ongoing medication monitoring of children and young people with ADHD is reviewed. We propose that a General Practitioner with a Specialist Interest (GPwSI) model could be developed in relation to ADHD to ensure that shared care arrangements between CAMHS and primary care for children with ADHD are in place. Clinical materials to support GPs in this new role are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is commonly comorbid with movement difficulties, including developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Compartmentalised service provision may result in children with ADHD not being screened, and assessed if necessary, for DCD and vice versa. In this study, 69 children attending an ADHD clinic were screened for movement problems, using the parent-completed Movement Assessment Battery for Children Checklist (Henderson and Sugden 1992). The results showed that 19% of the children with ADHD were defined as having a 'movement problem', with a further 16% defined as 'at risk'. This paper discusses the results of the study and the implications for paediatric occupational therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This qualitative study aims to explore the types and purpose of discourse emerging when professionals from a Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service meet with professionals from other agencies to discuss cases. The aim reflects current political and contextual agendas influencing agencies to work more closely together and obstacles to achieving this goal highlighted in the literature such as the need for agencies to develop a common language to discuss children of concern. Data were collected through eight audio-taped meetings involving CAMHS and members of other agencies such as social services and education. A thematic analysis identified nine themes, defined according to their discourse type, including: single agency discourse; case complexity discourse and multi-agency discourse. Results indicate that agencies are hindered from working more closely together and developing a common language for use in multi-agency meetings, because they tend to have different understandings of the terminology used and a common consensus about language and meaning is not usually negotiated within the meeting. There is a need for greater awareness amongst staff from different professional groups and agencies that meaning given by one group will often need to be clarified by others and assumptions about common understandings should not be made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]