Healthcare costs due to low back pain in the emergency department and inpatient setting in Sydney, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a common presentation to emergency departments, often resulting in subsequent admissions to hospital. There have been several studies investigating the cost of low back pain to society, but few specific to the emergency department and inpatient setting, especially in Australia. The aim was to describe the cost of low back pain in Australian public hospital emergency departments, and inpatient settings, and explore healthcare costs associated with different care pathways. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we explored the costs associated with an episode of care for low back pain in adults that attended three emergency departments in Sydney between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2019. Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms (SNOMED) diagnosis codes were used to identify episodes of care where the patients had been diagnosed with non-specific low back pain or lumbosacral radicular syndromes. Serious spinal pathologies were excluded. We determined the costs for different treatment pathways involving the ambulance service, emergency department and inpatient ward care. Hospital costs were adjusted for inflation to 2019 Australian dollars (AUD). FINDINGS: There were 12,399 non-serious low back pain episodes of care during the study period. 4006 (32%) arrived by ambulance and 2067 (17%) were admitted for inpatient care. The total costs of inpatient and emergency department care across the 5-year period were AUD$36.7 million, with a mean of AUD$2959 per episode of care. The mean cost for a patient who had a non-ambulance presentation to the emergency department and was discharged was AUD$584. Patients presenting to the emergency department via ambulance and were discharged had a mean cost of AUD$1022. Patients who presented without the need of an ambulance and were admitted had a mean cost of $13,137. The most expensive care pathway was for patients arriving by ambulance with subsequent admission, with a mean cost of AUD$14,949. INTERPRETATION: The common practice of admitting patients with non-serious low back pain for inpatient care comes at great cost to the healthcare system. In a resource constrained environment, our data highlights the economic need to implement innovative, evidence-based strategies to reduce the inpatient management of these patients. FUNDING: Nil.

Control of COVID-19 in Australia through quarantine: the role of special health accommodation (SHA) in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: The first COVID-19 cases were diagnosed in Australia on 25 January 2020. Initial epidiemiology showed that the majority of cases were in returned travellers from overseas. One aspect of Public Health response was to introduce compulsory 14 day quarantine for all travellers returning to New South Wales (NSW) by air or sea in Special Health Accommodation (SHA). We aim to outline the establishment of a specialised health quarantine accommodation service in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and describe the first month of COVID-19 screening. METHODS: The SHA was established with a comprehensive governance structure, remote clinical management through Royal Prince Alfred Virtual Hospital (rpavirtual) and site management with health care workers, NSW Police and accommodation staff. RESULTS: From 29 March to 29 April 2020, 373 returning travellers were admitted to the SHA from Sydney Airport. 88 (26.1%) of those swabbed were positive for SARS-CoV 2. The day of diagnosis of COVID-19 varied from Day 1 to Day 13, with 63.6% (n = 56) of these in the first week of quarantine. 50% of the people in the SHA were referred to rpavirtual for ongoing clinical management. Seven people required admission to hospital for ongoing clinical care. CONCLUSION: The Public Health response to COVID-19 in Australia included early and increased case detection through testing, tracing of contacts of confirmed cases, social distancing and prohibition of gatherings. In addition to these measures, the introduction of mandated quarantine for travellers to Australia was integral to the successful containment of COVID-19 in NSW and Australia through the prevention of transmission locally and interstate from returning travellers.

Accelerated programmes in children's nursing to tackle the workforce gap in the United Kingdom: A cost-consequences analysis.

BACKGROUND: With alarming vacancy rates and dipping availability of European nurses, remedies for the shortage of nurses in the UK are urged. To accelerate the registration of new children's nurses, a health education funder commissioned two education programmes within its region. The first is a 1-year programme designed for UK-registered nurses in adult or mental health. The second is a 2-year programme for individuals, not registered as nurses, who are child or social care graduates with experience of working with children and young people. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the economic effectiveness of two accelerated children's nursing education programmes. DESIGN: Economic evaluation. SETTINGS: Two accelerated children's nursing education programmes in two sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Nursing students enrolled in both programmes (N = 20). METHODS: We adopt a cost-consequences analysis to analyse the programmes' costs and outcomes. RESULTS: All graduates were heading for posts within the region where they studied, a favourable outcome for the funder. However, the first programme would deplete the workforce in other nursing fields, whereas the second, by quickening the graduates' career progression, would not dent the long-term shortage in entry roles. Given our small sample size, these impacts may differ if the programmes have wider implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation measures the effectiveness of two novel accelerated education programmes in tackling the nurses' shortage. Concurrently, it contributes to developing a standardised approach for future economic evaluations in nursing education.

Qualitative exploration of women's experiences of intramuscular pethidine or remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia for labour pain.

OBJECTIVES: To explore women's experiences of remifentanil or pethidine for labour pain and infant feeding behaviours at 6weeks post partum. DESIGN: Qualitative postnatal sub-study to the randomised controlled trial of remifentanil intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) versus intramuscular pethidine for pain relief in labour (RESPITE). Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted at 6 weeks post partum, and thematic analysis was undertaken. SETTING: Women recruited to the RESPITE trial from seven UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty women consented and 49 (30 remifentanil group and 19 pethidine group) completed the interview. RESULTS: Eight themes emerged which encompassed women's antenatal plans for pain management (Birth Expectations) through to their future preferences for pain relief (Reflections for Future Choices). Many women who used remifentanil felt it provided effective pain relief (Effectiveness of Pain Relief), whereas women in the pethidine group expressed more mixed views. Both groups described side effects, with women using pethidine frequently reporting nausea (Negative Physiological Responses) and women using remifentanil describing more cognitive effects (Cognitive Effects). Some women who used remifentanil reported restricted movements due to technical aspects of drug administration and fear of analgesia running out (Issues with Drug Administration). Women described how remifentanil enabled them to maintain their ability to stay focused during the birth (Enabling a Sense of Control). There was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and continuation between pethidine and remifentanil groups (Impact on Infant Behaviour and Breastfeeding). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative insights from a follow-up study to a trial which explored experiences of intravenous remifentanil PCA with intramuscular pethidine injection found that remifentanil appeared to provide effective pain relief while allowing women to remain alert and focused during labour, although as with pethidine, some side effects were noted. Overall, there was little difference in reported breastfeeding initiation and duration between the two groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29654603.