Search

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

Background: Race and socioeconomic status influence outcomes for adult and pediatric burn patients, yet the impact of these factors on elderly patients (Medicare eligible, 65 years of age) remains unknown., Methods: Data pooled from three verified burn centers from 2004 to 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Age, race, gender, percent total body surface area (%TBSA) burn, mortality, length of stay (LOS), LOS per %TBSA burn, and zip code which provided Census data on race, poverty, and education levels within a community were collected. Data were analyzed using logistic and generalized linear models in SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA)., Results: Our population was mainly Caucasian (63%), African American (18%), Hispanic (7.6%), and Asian (3.5%). Mean age was 76.3 ± 8.3 years, 52.5% were male. Mean %TBSA was 9 ± 13.8%; 15% of the patients sustained an inhalation injury. The mortality rate was 14.4%. Inhalation injury was significantly associated with mortality and discharge to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) (p < 0.05). Race was significantly associated with socioeconomic disparities and affected LOS/TBSA, but not discharge to SNF or mortality on univariate analysis. Poverty level, education level, and insurance status (others vs. public) independently predicted SNF discharge, while median income and insurance type independently predicted LOS/TBSA., Conclusion: In this elderly cohort, race did not predict standard markers of burn outcome (mortality and discharge to SNF). Socioeconomic status independently predicted LOS and discharge to SNF, suggesting a relationship between socioeconomic status and recovery from a burn injury. Better understanding of racial and socioeconomic disparities is necessary to provide equitable treatment of all patients., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Professionals in the fields of mental retardation and giftedness have much to teach each other as well as the field of human development in general. Examining the commonalities and differences between the fields in social issues, definitions, developmental differences from the norm, values and policy issues, and educational and long-term implications deepens insights about both normal and deviant development. The authors stress the importance of individual differences in the differential design of educational strategies and the application of approaches developed with specialized populations to normally developing children. Current social inequalities affect both of these fields in particular ways. Finally, numerous research agendas can be enhanced by including representatives of both ends of the normal curve.

The overall purpose of this study was to describe the developmental and functional status of young Latino children. We analyzed data from the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and estimated the percentages of young Mexican-American and mainland Puerto Rican children with indicators of developmental need for special services, i.e., low birth weight, use of neonatal intensive care, congenital problems, chronic conditions of developmental concern, functional limitations, and physician diagnoses of medical conditions. Estimates suggest that Puerto Rican children had substantially poorer status than Mexican-American children who, in turn, have indicators that are comparable with those reported for the general population. The difference in status between the two Latino groups merits further investigation.

Past legislation related to children and families has been used to improve services to specific target groups of children and families in need (i.e., poor, handicapped, etc.) Current legislation, notably Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, and Public Law 99-457 (Part H), Services for Infants and Toddlers with Handicapping Conditions, also includes elements of mandated reform of certain professional practices (i.e., inclusion of parents in planning and requirements for multidisciplinary cooperation). Such a mandate has the effect of putting into practice changes that many professionals have said were needed but were unable to achieve, but it also makes the implementation of these policies more difficult.