Integrated palliative homecare in advanced dementia: reduced healthcare utilisation and costs.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the economic benefit of an integrated home-based palliative care programme for advanced dementia (Programme Dignity), evaluation is required. This study aimed to estimate Programme Dignity's average monthly cost from a provider's perspective; and compare healthcare utilisation and costs of programme patients with controls, accounting for enrolment duration. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Home-dwelling patients with advanced dementia (stage 7 on the functional assessment staging in Alzheimer's disease) with a history of pneumonia, albumin <35 g/L or tube-feeding and known to be deceased were analysed (Programme Dignity=184, controls=139). One-year programme operational costs were apportioned on a per patient-month basis. Cumulative healthcare utilisation and costs were examined at 1, 3 and 6 months look-back from death. Between-group comparisons used Poisson, zero-inflated Poisson regressions and generalised linear models. RESULTS: The average monthly programme cost was SGD$1311 (SGD-Pounds exchange rate: 0.481) per patient. Fully enrolled programme patients were less likely to visit the emergency department (incidence rate ratios (IRRs): 1 month=0.56; 3 months=0.19; 6 months=0.10; all p<0.001), be admitted to hospital (IRRs: 1 month=0.60; 3 months=0.19; 6 months=0.15; all p<0.001), had a lower cumulative length of stay (IRRs: 1 month=0.78; 3 months=0.49; 6 months=0.24; all p<0.001) and incurred lesser healthcare utilisation costs (ß-coefficients: 1 month=0.70; 3 months=0.40; 6 months=0.43; all p<0.01) at all time-points examined. CONCLUSION: Programme Dignity for advanced dementia reduces healthcare utilisation and costs. If scalable, it may benefit more patients wishing to remain at home at the end-of-life, allowing for a potentially sustainable care model to cope with rapid population ageing. It contributes to the evidence base of advanced dementia palliative care and informs healthcare policy making. Future studies should estimate informal caregiving costs for comprehensive economic evaluation.

Longitudinal Study Comparing Mental Health Outcomes in Frontline Emergency Department Healthcare Workers through the Different Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

As countries transition from the COVID-19 pandemic to endemic status, healthcare systems continue to be under pressure. We aimed to quantify changes in depression, anxiety, stress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) between 3 cohorts (2020, 2021 and 2022) of our Emergency Department (ED) healthcare workers (HCWs) and those who had worked through all 3 phases of the pandemic; and identify factors associated with poorer mental health outcomes (MHOs). In this longitudinal single-centre study in Singapore, three surveys were carried out yearly (2020, 2021 and 2022) since the COVID-19 outbreak. Depression, anxiety and stress were measured using DASS-21, and PTSD was measured using IES-R. A total of 327 HCWs (90.1%) participated in 2020, 279 (71.5%) in 2021 and 397 (92.8%) in 2022. In 2022, ED HCWs had greater concerns about workload (Mean score ± SD: 2022: 4.81 ± 0.86, vs. 2021: 4.37 ± 0.89, vs. 2020: 4.04 ± 0.97) and perceived to have less workplace support (2022: 4.48 ± 0.76, vs. 2021: 4.66 ± 0.70, vs. 2020: 4.80 ± 0.69). There was overall worsening depression (27.5% in 2020, 29.7% in 2021 and 32.2% in 2022) and stress (12.2% in 2020, 14.0% in 2021 and 17.4% in 2022). Healthcare assistants as a subgroup had improving MHOs. ED HCWs who were female and had psychiatric history, were living with the elderly, and had concerns about their working environment, workload and infection had poorer MHOs. This study will guide us in refining existing and devising more focused interventions to further support our ED HCWs' wellbeing.

A One-Year Longitudinal Study: Changes in Depression and Anxiety in Frontline Emergency Department Healthcare Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) fighting COVID-19 have been associated with depression and anxiety, but there is limited data to illustrate these changes over time. We aim to quantify the changes in depression and anxiety amongst Emergency Department (ED) HCWs over one year and examine the factors associated with these changes. In this longitudinal single-centre study in Singapore, all ED HCWs were prospectively recruited face-to-face. Paper-based surveys were administered in June 2020 and June 2021. Depression and anxiety were measured using DASS-21. The results of 241 HCWs who had completed both surveys were matched. There was significant improvement in anxiety amongst all HCWs (Mean: 2020: 2.85 (±3.19) vs. 2021: 2.54 (±3.11); Median: 2020: 2 (0-4) vs. 2021: 2 (0-4), p = 0.045). HCWs living with elderly and with concerns about infection risk had higher odds of anxiety; those living with young children had lower odds of anxiety. There was significant worsening depression amongst doctors (Mean: 2020: 2.71 (±4.18) vs. 2021: 3.60 (±4.50); Median: 2020: 1 (0-3) vs. 2021: 3 (0-5), p = 0.018). HCWs ≥ 41 years, living with elderly and with greater concerns about workload had higher odds of depression. HCWs who perceived better workplace support and better social connectedness had lower odds of depression. In summary, our study showed significant improvement in anxiety amongst ED HCWs and significant worsening depression amongst ED doctors over one year. Age, living with elderly, and concerns about workload and infection risk were associated with higher odds of depression and anxiety.