Practice Arm of the School’s Department of Forensic Psychology Dedicates New Facility in the Merchandise Mart

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is poised to further connect its psychology services to the legal sector and community agencies that interface with the court system thanks to its new Forensic Center, which was formally dedicated at a Merchandise Mart event on January 30.

As the practice arm of the Forensic Psychology Department, the center brings students together with local organizations on projects that bolster hands-on learning experiences while addressing unmet needs in the community. Students benefit from the opportunity to put classroom instruction into practice in real-world settings that range from the Cook County Department of Juvenile Probation to women’s shelters, residential treatment centers, and programs for ex-offenders.

“For nearly three decades, we sent students, faculty, and alumni into the community to lend their skills and compassion to the underserved,” said Chicago School President Michael Horowitz in his event remarks to faculty, staff, students, trustees, and community partners. “Now, because of the center, we are inviting the community to our campus and providing services to our neighbors who need help keeping their families together and strong. The Forensic Center is another example of how our campus isn’t just in Chicago but of Chicago.”

The new home for the Forensic Center is the school’s 40,000 square feet of annex space in the Merchandise Mart, which opened last fall. At the heart of the center is the new Mr. and Mrs. Philip R. Utigard and Transwestern Treatment and Observation Room, which supports the center’s initiatives including instruction of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT). The facility is equipped with a one-way mirror and a separate observation room that will allow the use of a “bug-in-the-ear” communication system to facilitate observation and discreet coaching by therapists to parents as they interact with their children. Because PCIT is empirically based, it carries the endorsement of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services as a recognized model for helping families with a history of abuse. Although it is a therapy that has been shown to be effective with abusive families in several states, few Illinois practitioners have been trained in its use.

The Forensic Center is staffed by Chicago School Forensic Psychology Department faculty, who collectively bring years of experience and expertise to the initiative. Although launched with a single program, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, the center has since expanded to include a wide range of short-term services that address issues of delinquency, child maltreatment, pre- and post-transitional living for offenders, and victim-related trauma. In addition, the center offers professional development and continuing education workshops. The center was developed under the leadership of Dr. Mike Fogel, department chair; Dr. Darlene Perry, executive director; and Dr. Tiffany Masson, director of the center.

“With students working alongside faculty gaining hands-on experience and direct supervision, we have provided psychological services to ex-offenders to address factors that lead to increased rates of recidivism,” said Dr. Fogel at the event. “We have provided parent training to individuals working toward reunification with their child or children after a finding of child abuse or neglect. And we have assessed the effectiveness of a high school to college program for youth in care and a life skills program for gang involved youth.”

Started in 2002, The Chicago School’s M.A. in Forensic Psychology was the first of its kind in the Midwest. Since then, the program has grown to become one of the school’s most popular with more than 200 students currently enrolled and more than 300 graduates.

The Forensic Center is the latest example of initiatives introduced by Chicago School faculty and staff to open the campus community to the outside world. Other examples are the Center for International Studies, the Center for Multicultural and Diversity Studies, and the Center for Latino Mental Health.

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology:

Founded in 1979, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology is the nation’s leading nonprofit graduate university exclusively dedicated to the applications of psychology and related behavioral sciences. TCS is an active member of the National Council of Schools and Programs of Professional Psychology, which has recognized The Chicago School for its distinguished service and outstanding contributions to cultural diversity and advocacy. The Chicago School’s community service initiatives resulted in recognition on the President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll for exemplary service efforts and service to disadvantaged youth.

For more information about The Chicago School Forensic Center, visit www.forensiccenter.org.

For more information about The Chicago School, visit www.thechicagoschool.edu.


Traditional Risk Factors Often Miss Heart Disease Warning Signs

  • Author: Health Informer
  • Filed under: Health News
  • Date: Jan 31,2009

VAP(R) Cholesterol Test helps physicians identify emerging risk factors better than standard cholesterol test and traditional risk factors, study shows

Traditional risk factors such as age, standard cholesterol levels and blood pressure do a poor job of predicting heart disease risk in younger, healthy adults with a family history of early heart disease. That’s according to a recent study published in Clinical Cardiology, which revealed that “emerging risk factors,” including detailed cholesterol measurements such as HDL(2) and remnant lipoprotein particles, play a much greater role in determining heart disease risk than previously thought.

The study is titled Prevalence of Emerging Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Younger Individuals with a Family History of Premature Coronary Heart Disease and Low Framingham Risk Score. It is the latest in a series of clinical studies showing that the traditional Framingham risk score doesn’t always do a good job of estimating that risk, especially among people in their mid-30s to early 60s.

Measurement of emerging clinical and lipid risk factors in the study was done with the VAP(R) (Vertical Auto Profile) Cholesterol Test from Atherotech, Inc. Physicians are increasingly using such detailed cholesterol testing to more accurately identify their parents’ true risk of heart disease, allowing for treatment and lifestyle changes that can decrease the risk of a heart attack or stroke.

Atherotech Chief Medical Officer James Ehrlich, M.D., said the study is consistent with a growing body of research revealing how poorly the office-based exam using Framingham analysis and traditional cholesterol testing performs in identifying true cardiac risk.

“Clearly it is time for physicians to take a much more sophisticated and individualized approach to cardiac risk assessment,” said Ehrlich, “which may include imaging tests and more revealing and accurate cholesterol profiling such as the VAP Test.” The evidence is growing that younger individuals and most women would have been considered at such low risk by standard tests in the months prior to their heart attacks that they would not have even qualified for preventive therapy, explained Ehrlich.

The VAP Test, which is covered by most insurance providers and Medicare, provides physicians with direct measurement of LDL (bad cholesterol), HDL (good cholesterol) and all relevant cholesterol subclasses. These important but often overlooked subclasses include non-HDL, particle number as determined by accurate apoB, and emerging risk factors such as Lp(a), low-density lipoprotein remnants and small dense LDL.

The VAP Test is also the only commercially available advanced lipid profile that routinely reports all three lipoprotein parameters — LDL, non-HDL and apoB — considered necessary by the 2008 expert consensus guidelines issued by the American Diabetes Association and American College of Cardiology.

In the Clinical Cardiology study, researchers evaluated 89 younger men and women (average age of 47) with a family history of premature coronary heart disease (CHD) and who had a low Framingham risk score. The risk factors included in the Framingham calculation are age, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, treatment for hypertension and cigarette smoking. Patients with existing CHD or CHD equivalents were excluded.

The most common emerging risk factor for heart disease that was missed using traditional cholesterol testing methods was low HDL(2). The second most overlooked emerging risk factor was high levels of triglyceride rich remnant lipoproteins such as IDL (intermediate density lipoproteins) and very low density lipoproteins (VLDL(3)). Low HDL(2) was present in 72 percent of the study group, and high levels of IDL + VLDL(3) were present in nearly half (49 percent) of patients. In addition, 38 percent of the participants had coronary atherosclerosis as reflected in EBCT derived coronary calcium scores, and 24 percent of the participants had “at-risk” levels of C-reactive protein (above 3 mg/dl).

All patients were screened for emerging clinical and lipid risk factors with the VAP Test. Researchers noted that only 11 percent of the participants would have been prescribed lipid-lowering therapy based on current National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines.

The authors concluded that, “The Framingham risk score underestimates cardiovascular risk in individuals with a family history of premature CHD, and screening for emerging cardiovascular risk factors may better assess CV (cardiovascular) risk in these patients.”

People with a family history or an existing condition of diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease — or who are already taking cholesterol – lowering medication — are candidates for the comprehensive VAP Test. The VAP Test is available nationwide. For more information call 877.901.8510 or visit www.thevaptest.com.

Source: Atherotech, Inc.


The commonwealth’s latest statewide survey on uninsured rates shows that more than one million Pennsylvanians lack health insurance coverage — an increase from a similar study in 2004, Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario said.

“Overall, the study showed that increases in uninsured numbers were seen in almost every category; including adults, children, certain ethnic groups and most geographic areas,” Ario said. “Adults are more likely than children to be uninsured, and this shows up in the fast-growing waiting list for our adultBasic program, which provides subsidized health coverage to adults who have been uninsured for at least six months.

“The waiting list stands at more than 183,000 individuals this week and is projected to grow to 282,000 by the end of June,” said Ario. “This compares to a projected enrollment of more than 41,000; meaning that the waiting list may soon be seven times the number of enrollments unless the General Assembly addresses the problem. Some people have been on the waiting list since November of 2006.

“Coverage through private health insurance dropped from 66 percent covered in 2004 to 62 percent in 2008. Some of this decline was made up by an increase from 14 to 18 percent in Pennsylvania residents who have health insurance through a state-sponsored program.

“While this survey was conducted before the recession became evident, even at that time, more than 75 percent of the uninsured ranked cost as the main reason for not having health insurance. Also, those without insurance are not accessing the routine care necessary to prevent or address health conditions before they become bigger problems.

“Additionally, the uninsured are a diverse population. Most uninsured adults are working, but either are not offered insurance or cannot afford the insurance that is offered to them. Others are temporarily uninsured because they’re between jobs. These numbers would be worse if not for public programs, but some also fall through the cracks of public programs.

“Survey results demonstrate the effectiveness of our Children’s Health Insurance Program, CHIP, with only 5 percent of children, up to age 18, uninsured compared to 12 percent of adults 19-64 years old. One reason our track record with children is better than with adults is that CHIP has substantial support from the federal government, while adultBasic does not.

“Our state’s uninsured percentage rate — at just over eight percent — continues to be better than the 15.8 percent national average, but the trends are heading in the wrong direction. The CHIP program illustrates how public-private collaborations can work, especially with state and federal dollars, and the Governor’s health reform proposals would apply those lessons to expanding the adultBasic program. We will continue to work with the General Assembly and the federal government to cover the uninsured.”

Ario noted that the federal government is currently considering an expansion of the SCHIP program, as well as targeted assistance to uninsured adults through increased support to state Medicaid programs and subsidies for individuals on COBRA (health insurance) coverage.

Specific findings of the survey:

  • The survey found that more than 1 million (1,021,790) Pennsylvanians lack health insurance coverage. This is an increase from a 2004 study indicating that nearly 900,000 Pennsylvania residents were uninsured.
  • Overall, the percentage of Pennsylvania residents that are uninsured rose from 7.5 percent in 2004 to 8.2 percent in 2008. Individuals in the 19-44 age bracket are the most likely to be uninsured.
  • Adults lacking health insurance rose from 755,000 in 2004 to nearly 883,000 in 2008.
  • The percentage of Pennsylvanians covered by private health insurance dropped from 66 percent in 2004 to 62 percent in 2008. However, when looking at individuals under age 65, more than 70 percent are covered by private health insurance. This is slightly above the national average of 68.9 percent.
  • About 18 percent of Pennsylvania residents have health insurance through a state-sponsored program, an increase from 14 percent in 2004.
  • The number of uninsured children increased from about 133,500 to approximately 138,500. However, more than 60 percent of eligible children are enrolled in the CHIP program and nearly all (83 percent) of the CHIP parents would recommend the program.
  • Characteristics of those who are uninsured show that: nearly 18 percent have lacked coverage for more than 5 years; 62 percent, ages 19-64, are working; of those people who are working and uninsured, nearly 48 percent work for small employers of fewer than 50 people; 61 percent have not seen a doctor or health care provider for routine care during the last 12 months (this compares to 24 percent of those with coverage); only 6 percent have stayed in a hospital overnight during the last 12 months (this compares to 11 percent of insured Pennsylvanians).

The survey, conducted by the research group, Market Decisions, LLC, is a follow-up to the department’s original Health Insurance Status Survey from 2004. The survey provides information about health insurance coverage, demographic and employment characteristics and the financial barriers to health care for Pennsylvania residents. A random, digit-dial telephone survey interviewed over 20,000 households representing every county in the commonwealth and gathered information on nearly 50,000 Pennsylvanians, a sampling more than three times the population surveyed in 2004. The percentages reported for the entire survey sample have a margin of error of 0.7 percent statewide. Interviews were conducted between September 27, 2007 and May 15, 2008.

Results of the survey can be found at www.insurance.state.pa.us.


Despite Risks, Wide Range of Volumes and Doses Used in Small Injection Areas

At the American Academy of Pain Medicine’s 25th Annual Meeting, researchers from University of California at San Diego report that no standardized practices exist for administering an epidural steroid injection for back pain. Researchers looked at many factors including: which steroids were given, the amount of steroid used, and whether or not a local anesthetic was mixed with the steroid.

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are minimally invasive procedures used to treat pain in the neck, arms, back and legs caused by inflamed nerves. While injections in the lumbar (low back) region are low risk, injections in the thoracic (mid back) and cervical (neck) region have the risk of injury to the spinal cord and brain. It usually consists of a steroid diluted with sterile saline, and sometimes also addition of local anesthesia. Controversy exists on the long-term efficacy of this procedure to treat spine associated pain.

To compare currently taught techniques, Yogesh Patel, MD, and his colleagues at UCSD, identified and surveyed attending pain physicians at interventional pain programs in the United States about their protocols regarding ESI. Results showed that no standard protocols with regard to type of steroid, dose or use of local anesthesia exist. In fact, the data showed that while most physicians use a moderate volume and dose of steroid, some physicians are giving very high volumes (up to 10 cc) of steroids in areas such as the cervical epidural space. In limited enclosed areas like the cervical region that volume of medicine could lead to increased pressures which could potentially be painful for patients.

“Epidural steroid injections are an important and common option for the treatment of back pain. However, we found that a great variety of techniques are being used. There is no gold standard,” said Dr. Patel, lead author of the study and resident at the University of California at San Diego. “Guidelines may need to be explored with regard to this procedure to increase the effectiveness and decrease risk when using this approach to treat pain.”

Dr. Patel’s study found there were differences from institution to institution regarding which steroid was preferred for these injections. The most common steroids identified for this procedure and respective dose ranges were: depomedrol (dose range 40-120 mg), celestone (dose range 6-15 mg), decadron (dose range 4-12 mg), and kenalog (dose range 10-80 mg).

“These variations in technique might affect why some patients get better results from ESI than others and may also explain good and poor outcomes. This needs to be explored further,” Patel concluded.

Source: American Academy of Pain Medicine


Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Meta