Association of travel time, patient characteristics, and hospital quality with patient mobility for breast cancer surgery: A national population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This national study investigated hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: By using linked administrative data sets from the English National Health Service, the authors identified all women diagnosed between January 2, 2016, and December 31, 2018, who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. The extent to which patients bypassed their nearest hospital was investigated using a geographic information system (ArcGIS). Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the impact of travel time, hospital quality, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 22,622 Of 69,153 patients undergoing BCS, 22,622 (32.7%) bypassed their nearest hospital; and, of 23,536 patients undergoing mastectomy, 7179 (30.5%) bypassed their nearest hospital. Women who were younger, without comorbidities, or from rural areas were more likely to travel to more distant hospitals (p < .05). Patients undergoing BCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.50) or mastectomy (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02) were more likely to be treated at specialist breast reconstruction centers despite not undergoing the procedure. Patients receiving mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were more likely to travel to hospitals employing surgeons who had a media reputation (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.28-4.52). Patients undergoing BCS were less likely to travel to hospitals with shorter surgical waiting times (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92). The authors did not observe a significant impact for research activity, hospital quality rating, breast re-excision rates, or the status as a multidisciplinary cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: Patient choice policies may drive inequalities in the health care system without improving patient outcomes.

Brief group psychoeducation for caregivers of individuals with bipolar disorder: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is associated with significant impairment in personal and social functioning for the individual and their caregivers. Psychoeducation for caregivers is beneficial, but interventions have typically required a significant time commitment and have not assessed changes in self-efficacy. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a brief, two-session psychoeducational intervention for caregivers. It was hypothesized that the intervention would reduce caregiver burden and distress, and increase bipolar disorder knowledge and bipolar disorder self-efficacy. METHODS: Participants (N=32) were randomized to immediate or waitlist control conditions. The intervention involved two, 150-minute group sessions spaced one-week apart. At pre-, post-, and one-month follow-up participants completed the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale (DASS-21), Burden Assessment Scale, Knowledge of Bipolar Disorder Scale, and a Bipolar Disorder Self-efficacy Scale. RESULTS: Compared to the waitlist control group, the immediate treatment group demonstrated large and significant reductions in caregiver burden, and increases in bipolar disorder knowledge and bipolar disorder self-efficacy. These improvements maintained or increased to follow-up. No significant change was observed on the DASS-21. LIMITATIONS: Reliance on self-report and the sample comprised mostly of parents and partners, so it unclear if results generalize to other carer groups. CONCLUSIONS: Large and enduring improvements in carer burden, knowledge, and bipolar disorder self-efficacy can be achieved from a very brief, two-session intervention.

Concentrations of drugs determined in blood samples collected from suspected drugged drivers in England and Wales.

This communication reports the blood concentrations of alcohol and drugs from 376 cases of alleged driving under the influence of drugs analysed at the Forensic Science Service Chorley and London laboratories between February 2010 and March 2011. The samples were analysed for alcohol, amphetamine, benzodiazepines, cocaine, MDMA, opiates, γ-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), ketamine, methadone and methylmethcathinone (the 4-isomer of which is known as mephedrone). The results were interpreted with respect to the number and type of drugs of abuse detected and the concentrations measured. Alcohol was quantified in 113 cases (30%), and of these a level in excess of the prescribed UK limit for driving of 80 mg% was present in 90 cases. In 80 cases, only the concentration of alcohol was measured, the concentrations of both drugs and alcohol were measured in 33 cases. In the remaining 263 cases, only the concentrations of relevant drugs of abuse were measured. The most common drug of abuse quantified was cocaine which was detected in 92 cases, either as the active drug or as its major metabolite benzoylecgonine, followed by diazepam which was quantified in 76 cases. Concentrations of some new drugs, and drugs rarely reported in driving under the influence cases are also presented.