The use of email in a child and adolescent mental health service: are staff ready?

All staff members of a child and adolescent mental health service were invited to participate in a survey about the use of email. Sixty-two of the 105 staff members responded to the survey, a participation rate of 59%. Of the respondents, 32 were allied health staff, 10 were nurses, seven were administrative staff, six were medical staff, three were operational staff and four were acting in a combination of these roles. The respondents reported extensive work-related email usage and considered that they were confident in using email despite low levels of training. However, they did not feel that they understood the legal and ethical issues involved. Furthermore, there was limited incorporation of email into standard record keeping. The majority of respondents thought that increased use of email would lead to a greater workload, a consequence they considered would probably increase over time. Many commented on the quick and practical use of this medium, but were wary about using email with individuals outside the service organization, especially if it were to contain clinical material. There was low use of email directly with clients, and clinicians were ambivalent about incorporating email into therapy. The results suggest that it is timely to consider the utility and appropriateness of email communication with clients and external service providers, and to formulate guidelines and procedures to ensure the confidentiality of client information and the safety of clients and staff.

An n-of-1 trial service in clinical practice: Testing the effectiveness of stimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

OBJECTIVE. We sought to describe the clinical use of n-of-1 trials for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in publicly and privately funded family and specialized pediatric practice in Australia. METHODS. We used a within-patient randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of stimulant (dexamphetamine or methylphenidate) versus placebo or alternative stimulant using 3 pairs of treatment periods. Trials were conducted from a central location using mail and telephone communication, with local supervision by the patients' clinicians. PATIENTS. Our study population included children with clinically diagnosed attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder who were aged 5 to 16 years and previously stabilized on an optimal dose of stimulant. They were selected because treatment effectiveness was uncertain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES. Our measures included number of patients recruited, number of doctors who used the service, geographic spread, completion rates, response rate, and post-n-of-1 trial decisions. RESULTS. Forty-five doctors across Australia requested 108 n-of-1 trials, of which 86 were completed. In 69 drug-versus-placebo comparisons, 29 children responded better to stimulant than placebo. Immediately posttrial, 19 of 25 drug-versus-placebo responders stayed on the same stimulant, and 13 of 24 nonresponders ceased or switched stimulants. In 40 of 63 for which data were available, posttrial management was consistent with the trial results. For all types of n-of-1 trials, management changed for 28 of 64 children for whom information was available. DISCUSSION. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder n-of-1 trials can be implemented successfully by mail and telephone communication. This type of trial can be valuable in clarifying treatment effect when it is uncertain, and in this series, they had a noticeable impact on short-term management.