Outcomes for patients with COVID-19 admitted to Australian intensive care units during the first four months of the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) during the initial months of the pandemic in Australia. DESIGN, SETTING: Prospective, observational cohort study in 77 ICUs across Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to participating ICUs with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during 27 February - 30 June 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ICU mortality and resource use (ICU length of stay, peak bed occupancy). RESULTS: The median age of the 204 patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care was 63.5 years (IQR, 53-72 years); 140 were men (69%). The most frequent comorbid conditions were obesity (40% of patients), diabetes (28%), hypertension treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (24%), and chronic cardiac disease (20%); 73 patients (36%) reported no comorbidity. The most frequent source of infection was overseas travel (114 patients, 56%). Median peak ICU bed occupancy was 14% (IQR, 9-16%). Invasive ventilation was provided for 119 patients (58%). Median length of ICU stay was greater for invasively ventilated patients than for non-ventilated patients (16 days; IQR, 9-28 days v 3 days; IQR, 2-5 days), as was ICU mortality (26 deaths, 22%; 95% CI, 15-31% v four deaths, 5%; 95% CI, 1-12%). Higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) scores on ICU day 1 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21) and chronic cardiac disease (aHR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.46-7.83) were each associated with higher ICU mortality. CONCLUSION: Until the end of June 2020, mortality among patients with COVID-19 who required invasive ventilation in Australian ICUs was lower and their ICU stay longer than reported overseas. Our findings highlight the importance of ensuring adequate local ICU capacity, particularly as the pandemic has not yet ended.

Victorian Lung Cancer Service Redesign Project: impacts of a quality improvement collaborative on timeliness and management in lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer management is characterised by a high disease burden, poor survival and substantial variation in management and outcomes. Service redesign provides opportunities for quality improvement (QI) and this improvement may be leveraged across multiple sites using QI collaboration. AIM: This initiative targeted Quality Improvement (QI) in lung cancer management, engaging a QI collaborative using service redesign methodologies in five Victorian hospitals. QI targets included timeliness from referral and diagnosis to treatment, multi-disciplinary meeting (MDM) presentation and supportive care screening. Redesign strategies targeted process sustainability through enhanced team capability. METHODS: This study engaged a prospective quality improvement cohort design targeting newly diagnosed tissue confirmed lung cancer with 6-month pre-intervention period and 6-month redesign implementation period, between September 2016 and August 2017, evaluated using Interrupted Time Series Analysis. Hospital sites included three regional and two metropolitan hospitals in Victoria. QI redesign targeted time intervals from referral to first specialist appointment (FSA), referral to diagnosis, diagnosis to first treatment (any intent), MDM documented in medical records and Supportive Care Screening Tool documented in medical records. RESULTS: There was a marked reduction in referral to FSA interval across all sites, with median (interquartile range) falling from 6 (0-15) to 4 (1-10) days, and proportion seen by a specialist within 14 days increased from 74.3% to 84.2%. The interval between diagnosis and treatment was not substantively changed in the 6-month implementation period. The proportion of subjects with documented presentation to the MDM increased from 61% to 67%. The proportion for which Supportive Care Screening documentation remained low at 26.3% post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Data-driven redesign initiatives enable identification and analysis of clinical practice variation and may be utilised to enhance timeliness of cancer care and improve local data service capabilities.

Breast Device Surgery in Australia: Early Results from the Australian Breast Device Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) is a clinical quality registry designed to monitor the performance of breast devices; and the quality and safety of breast device surgery. OBJECTIVE: To report on breast device surgery characteristics across Australia. METHODS: Participants were registered patients in the ABDR from 2012 to 2018. Results are described using percentages, mean and median. Revision rates were calculated using survival analysis methods. RESULTS: A total of 37,603 patients were registered and had undergone reconstruction (post-cancer 15.1%, risk-reducing mastectomy 3.4% and developmental deformity 2.4%) or cosmetic augmentation (74.7%) procedures. The majority of breast implant devices were silicone filled with textured surface (reconstruction 74.0% and augmentation 64.0%). Sub-pectoral plane was the most common for both reconstruction (60.1%) and augmentation (76.6%) procedures. For reconstruction surgery, the most common surgical incision was previous mastectomy scar (44.0%) and inframammary (31.8%), and for augmentation, it was inframammary (83.4%). Intraoperative/postoperative antibiotic usage for reconstruction was 85.8% and augmentation was 89.4%. Revision incidence due to complication at 12 months post-cancer reconstruction was 5.1%, risk-reducing reconstruction 5.7% and developmental deformity implants 4.5%. Revision incidence due to complication at 12 months after augmentation procedure was 1.1%. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) indicate high levels of satisfaction at 1 year for augmentation and reconstruction procedures. CONCLUSION: We report on early data from the ABDR and reflect on the uptake of the registry by surgeons and patients. The registry also benefits from international collaborative approaches to addressing challenges and is committed to facilitate international post-market surveillance.

Smokers of illicit tobacco report significantly worse health than other smokers.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to ascertain whether the health of past and current smokers of illicit tobacco (chop-chop) differs from that of smokers of licit tobacco. METHODS: The design was a telephone survey, stratified by state, using computer aided telephone interviewing, with households selected by random digit dialing from the telephone white pages. Setting was all Australian states and territories, 1,621 regular tobacco smokers aged 18+ years. Measures were social and personal characteristics of tobacco smokers, smoking histories and patterns, and health status (SF-8 and disability weights). Binary logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with current and lifetime chop-chop use. RESULTS: Compared with licit-only tobacco smokers, current users of chop-chop had significantly greater odds of beginning smoking aged <16 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, 95% CI = 1.09-2.50), of reporting below-average social functioning (OR 1.61, 95% CI = 1.06-2.44), and of a measurable disability (OR 1.95, 95% CI = 1.08-3.51). Lifetime chop-chop users were relatively likely to be less than 45 years of age (OR 1.82, 95% CI = 1.38-2.39), report below-average mental health (OR 1.61, 95% CI = 1.22-2.13) and above-average bodily pain (OR 1.40, 95% CI = 1.06-1.85), smoke more than 120 cigarettes/week (OR 1.39, 95% CI = 1.06-1.83), and to have begun smoking aged <16 years (OR 1.33, 95% CI = 1.01-1.75). DISCUSSION: Current and lifetime users of chop-chop report significantly worse health than smokers of licit tobacco. Investigation of how to communicate this finding to current and potential chop-chop smokers is warranted.