Patient characteristics of, and remedial interventions for, complaints and medico-legal claims against doctors: a rapid review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if patient's characteristics are associated with complaints and claims against doctors. Additionally, evidence for the effectiveness of remedial interventions on rates of complaints and claims against doctors has not been synthesised. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of recent literature to answer: Question 1 "What are the common characteristics and circumstances of patients who are most likely to complain or bring a claim about the care they have received from a doctor?" and Question 2 "What initiatives or interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing complaints and claims about the care patients have received from a doctor?". We used a systematic search (most recently in July 2023) of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature. Studies were screened against inclusion criteria and critically appraised in duplicate using standard tools. Results were summarised using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: From 8079 search results, we reviewed the full text of 250 studies. We included 25 studies: seven for Question 1 (6 comparative studies with controls and one systematic review) and 18 studies for Question 2 (14 uncontrolled pre-post studies, 2 comparative studies with controls and 2 systematic reviews). Most studies were set in hospitals across a mix of medical specialties. Other than for patients with mental health conditions (two studies), no other patient characteristics demonstrated either a strong or consistent effect on the rate of complaints or claims against their treating doctors. Risk management programs (6 studies), and communication and resolution programs (5 studies) were the most studied of 6 intervention types. Evidence for reducing complaints and medico-legal claims, costs or premiums and more timely management was apparent for both types of programs. Only 1 to 3 studies were included for peer programs, medical remediation, shared decision-making, simulation training and continuing professional development, with few generalisable results. CONCLUSION: Few patient characteristics can be reliably related to the likelihood of medico-legal complaints or claims. There is some evidence that interventions can reduce the number and costs of claims, the number of complaints, and the timeliness of claims. However, across both questions, the strength of the evidence is very weak and is based on only a few studies or study designs that are highly prone to bias.

Prevalence of unmet supportive care needs reported by individuals ever diagnosed with cancer in Australia: a systematic review to support service prioritisation.

PURPOSE: Improved health outcomes for individuals ever diagnosed with cancer require comprehensive, coordinated care that addresses their supportive care needs. Implementing interventions to address these is confounded by a lack of evidence on population needs and a large pool of potential interventions. This systematic review estimates the point prevalence of different supportive care needs stratified by the tool used to measure needs and cancer type in Australia. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from 2010 to April 2023 to identify relevant studies published on the prevalence of supportive care needs in Australia. RESULTS: We identified 35 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The highest prevalent unmet need across all cancers was 'fear of cancer spreading' (20.7%) from the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short-Form 34 (SCNS-SF34), ranging from 9.4% for individuals ever diagnosed with haematological cancer to 36.3% for individuals ever diagnosed with gynaecological cancer, and 'concerns about cancer coming back' (17.9%) from the Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs (CaSUN), ranging from 9.7% for individuals ever diagnosed with prostate cancer to 37.8% for individuals ever diagnosed with breast cancer. Two studies assessed needs in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, reporting the highest needs for financial worries (21.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Point prevalence estimates presented here, combined with estimates of the costs and effects of potential interventions, can be used within economic evaluations to inform evidence-based local service provision to address the supportive care needs of individuals ever diagnosed with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Local health services can use local evidence to prioritise the implementation of interventions targeted at unmet needs.

DAta Linkage to Enhance Cancer Care (DaLECC): Protocol of a Large Australian Data Linkage Study.

Cancer is a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality, accounting for 250 Disability-Adjusted Life Years and 10 million deaths in 2019. Minimising unwarranted variation and ensuring appropriate cost-effective treatment across primary and tertiary care to improve health outcomes is a key health priority. There are few studies that have used linked data to explore healthcare utilisation prior to diagnosis in addition to post-diagnosis patterns of care. This protocol outlines the aims of the DaLECC project and key methodological features of the linked dataset. The primary aim of this project is to explore predictors of variations in pre- and post-cancer diagnosis care, and to explore the economic and health impact of any variation. The cohort of patients includes all South Australian residents diagnosed with cancer between 2011 and 2020, who were recorded on the South Australian Cancer Registry. These cancer registry records are being linked with state and national healthcare databases to capture health service utilisation and costs for a minimum of one-year prior to diagnosis and to a maximum of 10 years post-diagnosis. Healthcare utilisation includes state databases for inpatient separations and emergency department presentations and national databases for Medicare services and pharmaceuticals. Our results will identify barriers to timely receipt of care, estimate the impact of variations in the use of health care, and provide evidence to support interventions to improve health outcomes to inform national and local decisions to enhance the access and uptake of health care services.

Preventing chronic disease in overweight and obese patients with low health literacy using eHealth and teamwork in primary healthcare (HeLP-GP): a cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a multifaceted intervention on diet, physical activity and health literacy of overweight and obese patients attending primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Urban general practices in lower socioeconomic areas in Sydney and Adelaide. PARTICIPANTS: We aimed to recruit 800 patients in each arm. Baseline assessment was completed by 215 patients (120 intervention and 95 control). INTERVENTION: A practice nurse-led preventive health check, a mobile application and telephone coaching. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months, and included patient health and eHealth literacy, weight, waist circumference and blood pressure. Secondary outcomes included changes in diet and physical activity, preventive advice and referral, blood lipids, quality of life and costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses of difference-in-differences (DiD) estimates for each outcome were conducted. RESULTS: At 6 months, the intervention group, compared with the control group, demonstrated a greater increase in Health Literacy Questionnaire domain 8 score (ability to find good health information; mean DiD 0.22; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.44). There were similar differences for domain 9 score (understanding health information well enough to know what to do) among patients below the median at baseline. Differences were reduced and non-statistically significant at 12 months. There was a small improvement in diet scores at 6 months (DiD 0.78 (0.10 to 1.47); p=0.026) but not at 12 months. There were no differences in eHealth literacy, physical activity scores, body mass index, weight, waist circumference or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted recruitment and engagement were challenging in this population. While the intervention was associated with some improvements in health literacy and diet, substantial differences in other outcomes were not observed. More intensive interventions and using codesign strategies to engage the practices earlier may produce a different result. Codesign may also be valuable when targeting lower socioeconomic populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12617001508369) (http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12617001508369.aspx). TRIAL PROTOCOL: The protocol for this trial has been published (open access; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/6/e023239).

The impacts of unmet supportive care needs of cancer survivors in Australia: A qualitative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer incidence and survivorship are increasing worldwide. With more people living through and beyond cancer, there is a subsequent increase in their supportive care needs. This systematic review of qualitative studies aimed to describe the impacts of unmet supportive care needs on cancer survivors in Australia. METHODS: Databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus were searched, and after screening and applying eligibility criteria, 27 qualitative studies were included. Findings were synthesised according to the Supportive Care Framework for Cancer Care, including informational, physical, practical, emotional, psychological, social and spiritual need domains. RESULTS: The systematic review identified impacts of unmet informational, physical, practical, emotional and psychological needs. Frequently identified impacts of unmet informational needs were feelings of abandonment and isolation, distress, confusion and regret. Common impacts of unmet physical and practical needs were financial burden and return-to-work difficulties. Over half of all unmet supportive care needs caused emotional and psychological impacts. CONCLUSIONS: Findings identify the detrimental emotional and psychological impacts resulting from a range of unmet supportive care needs. The review highlights the interconnections between supportive care need domains thereby enhancing the understanding of the impacts of unmet SCNs. Findings may inform policy and practice change to improve supportive cancer care.