Whether visual processing deficits are common in reading disorders (RD), and related to reading ability in general, has been debated for decades. The type of visual processing affected also is debated, although visual discrimination and short-term memory (STM) may be more commonly related to reading ability. Reading disorders are frequently comorbid with ADHD, and children with ADHD often have subclinical reading problems. Hence, children with ADHD were used as a comparison group in this study. ADHD and RD may be dissociated in terms of visual processing. Whereas RD may be associated with deficits in visual discrimination and STM for order, ADHD is associated with deficits in visual-spatial processing. Thus, we hypothesized that children with RD would perform worse than controls and children with ADHD only on a measure of visual discrimination and a measure of visual STM that requires memory for order. We expected all groups would perform comparably on the measure of visual STM that does not require sequential processing. We found children with RD or ADHD were commensurate to controls on measures of visual discrimination and visual STM that do not require sequential processing. In contrast, both RD groups (RD, RD/ADHD) performed worse than controls on the measure of visual STM that requires memory for order, and children with comorbid RD/ADHD performed worse than those with ADHD. In addition, of the three visual measures, only sequential visual STM predicted reading ability. Hence, our findings suggest there is a deficit in visual sequential STM that is specific to RD and is related to basic reading ability. The source of this deficit is worthy of further research, but it may include both reduced memory for order and poorer verbal mediation.

Objectives: Children visiting emergency departments (EDs) are disproportionately affected by mental health disorders. Integrated behavioral health models hold promise for improving care among ED patients. We implemented and evaluated a novel behavioral health service integrated psychology trainees in a safety net hospital's pediatric ED and urgent care.Methods: Consultations and interventions provided were identified from the service's patient registry. Patients treated by the service were matched based on age, sex, day, and month of presentation to control patients who received a brief assessment by a specialized psychiatric nurse or patients receiving comprehensive management in a psychiatric emergency service. Rates of ED return visits were obtained from local hospital records, and insurance claims were used to identify rates of psychiatric hospitalization and outpatient follow-up care. Results:The most commonly provided interventions among 71 intervention patients were assistance with connection to follow-up behavioral health treatment (65%), relaxation training (41%), and motivational interviewing (31%). These patients were matched with 142 comparison patients. There was no difference among groups in return rates within 90 days among intervention versus nurse assessment or psychiatric emergency service patients (25% vs 23% vs 13%, P = 0.14). Insurance claims data were available for 115 patients (54%): within 90 days, integrated care patients were less likely to have at least 1 outpatient claim (52% vs 78% vs 84%, P < 0.01), and there was no difference in rates of psychiatric hospital admission (18% vs 20% vs 24%, P = 0.83).Conclusions: Although this psychology-led integrated behavioral health service delivered a range of brief psychotherapeutic interventions, its impact on outpatient, inpatient, and emergency care was mixed. This lower follow-up rate among intervention patients may reflect the success of active psychological treatment in the ED, lower acuity among intervention patients, or implications of the study's safety net setting. The authors discuss this model's potential for enhancing mental health care in pediatric EDs.

No abstract