Cohort profile: Using primary care data to understand Opioid Prescribing, Policy Impacts and Clinical Outcomes (OPPICO) in Victoria, Australia.

PURPOSE: The OPPICO cohort is a population-based cohort based on non-identifiable electronic health records routinely collected from 464 general practices in Victoria, Australia, created with the aim of understanding opioid prescribing, policy impacts and clinical outcomes. The aim of this paper is to provide a profile of the study cohort by summarising available demographic, clinical and prescribing characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: The cohort described in this paper comprises people who were aged at least 14 years at cohort entry, and who were prescribed an opioid analgesic at least once at participating practices for a total of 1 137 728 person-years from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. The cohort was formed using the data collected from electronic health records through the Population Level Analysis and Reporting (POLAR) system. The POLAR data primarily consist of patient demographics, clinical measurements, Australian Medicare Benefits Scheme item numbers, diagnoses, pathology testing and prescribed medications. FINDING TO DATE: In total, the cohort consists of 676 970 participants with 4 389 185 opioid prescription records from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. Approximately half (48.7%) received a single opioid prescription, and 0.9% received more than 100 opioid prescriptions. The mean number of opioid prescriptions per patient was 6.5 (SD=20.9); prescriptions for strong opioids accounted for 55.6% of all opioid prescriptions. FUTURE PLANS: The OPPICO cohort data will be used for various types of pharmacoepidemiological research, including examining the impact of policy changes on coprescription of opioids with benzodiazepines and gabapentin, and monitoring trends and patterns of other medication utilisation. Through data-linkage between our OPPICO cohort and hospital outcome data, we will examine whether policy changes for opioid prescribing lead to changes in prescription opioid-related harms, and other drug and mental health-related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EU PAS Register (EUPAS43218, prospectively registered).

The effect of transferring weekend physical therapy services from the acute to sub-acute setting in patients following hip and knee arthroplasty: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Weekend physical therapy services in the acute and/or sub-acute setting may optimize postoperative recovery following hip and knee arthroplasty, though evidence supporting these services is limited. PURPOSE: To explore the change in patient and service outcomes of transferring a weekend physical therapy service from the acute to the sub-acute setting following hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental research design nested within two stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trials. Acute weekend physical therapy services were sequentially discontinued and reallocated to the sub-acute setting in a random order from one ward at a time within the broader trial. Patient and service outcomes for participants 6 weeks following hip and knee arthroplasty (N = 247) were compared during 6 months of acute weekend physical therapy services (Phase 1, n = 117) followed by 6 months of sub-acute services (Phase 2, n = 130). Intention-to-treat statistical analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The intervention had a negligible effect on medium-term outcomes. The only statistically significant difference observed was slightly higher ratings of "worst pain experienced over the past week" [coefficient 0.865 (0.123 to 1.606), p = .022] during Phase 2. No interaction effects were observed despite a 2.4-day reduction in length of stay amongst complex patients during Phase 2 (18.28 and 15.86 days in Phase 1 and 2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: No comparative advantage or disadvantage was observed by reallocating a weekend physical therapy budget from the acute to sub-acute setting following hip and knee arthroplasty. Further research investigating the cost-effectiveness of these services in the sub-acute setting may be warranted for complex patients.

Trends in management of hip and knee osteoarthritis in general practice in Australia over an 11-year window: a nationwide cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe trends in knee and hip OA management by general medical practitioners (GPs) in Australia. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional survey data from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program (1,000 randomly-selected GPs annually recording 100 consecutive patient encounters) over two periods: Period one April 1, 2005-March 31, 2010 and period two April 1, 2010-March 31, 2016. This included data from 10,738 GPs and 1,073,800 patient encounters with 6,565 GPs and 9,196 patient encounters for hip/knee OA. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals around point estimates. FINDINGS: Rate of knee OA problems managed by GPs increased in period two (7•1 (6•9-7•4) vs 6•2 (95% CI 6•0-6•5) per 1,000 all encounters), with a similar trend for hip OA. Encounter rates rose for some subgroups but remained stable for vulnerable subgroups. Although use of Medicare chronic disease management items, referral to allied health professionals and advice/education and lifestyle management (knee OA) increased, rates remained low. Use of MRI imaging rose. Overall medication rates were stable but substantially higher than non-pharmacological treatments. Declining reliance on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and glucosamine and increased reliance on paracetamol (knee OA) and opioids were demonstrated. INTERPRETATION: GPs in Australia are more frequently managing knee and hip OA. While small changes in GP management actions occured, rates of recommended first-line non-pharmacological treatments remained low and imaging, medications, and surgical referral rates high. Strategies are needed to optimise lifestyle management and reduce low-value care, with attention to healthcare disparities. FUNDING: Funding was provided for this report by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence in Translational Research in Musculoskeletal Pain (#1079078).

Additional weekend allied health services reduce length of stay in subacute rehabilitation wards but their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are unclear in acute general medical and surgical hospital wards: a systematic review.

QUESTION: Are additional weekend allied health services effective and cost-effective for acute general medical and surgical wards, and subacute rehabilitation hospital wards? DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between January 2000 and May 2017. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analyses were conducted for relative measures of effect estimates. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to acute general medical and surgical wards, and subacute rehabilitation wards. INTERVENTION: All services delivered by allied health professionals during weekends (Saturday and/or Sunday). This study limited allied health professions to: occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, speech pathology, dietetics, art therapy, chiropractic, exercise physiology, music therapy, oral health (not dentistry), osteopathy, podiatry, psychology, and allied health assistants. OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital length of stay, hospital re-admission, adverse events, discharge destination, functional independence, health-related quality of life, and cost of hospital care. RESULTS: Nineteen articles (20 studies) were identified, comprising 10 randomised and 10 non-randomised trials. Physiotherapy was the most commonly investigated profession. A meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials showed that providing additional weekend allied health services in subacute rehabilitation wards reduced hospital length of stay by 2.35days (95% CI 0.45 to 4.24, I2=0%), and may be a cost-effective way to improve function (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.19, I2=0%), and health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.20, I2=0%). For acute general medical and surgical hospital wards, it was unclear whether the weekend allied health service model provided in the two identified randomised trials led to significant changes in measured outcomes. CONCLUSION: The benefit of providing additional allied health services is clearer in subacute rehabilitation settings than for acute general medical and surgical wards in hospitals. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD76771. [Sarkies MN, White J, Henderson K, Haas R, Bowles J, Evidence Translation in Allied Health (EviTAH) Group (2018) Additional weekend allied health services reduce length of stay in subacute rehabilitation wards but their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are unclear in acute general medical and surgical hospital wards: a systematic review. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 142-158].

Impact of disinvestment from weekend allied health services across acute medical and surgical wards: 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the 'current' weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a 'newly developed' service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The 'no weekend allied health service' condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference -1.6 days [-2.0 to -1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: -0.01 [-0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796.

What makes weekend allied health services effective and cost-effective (or not) in acute medical and surgical wards? Perceptions of medical, nursing, and allied health workers.

BACKGROUND: There is strong public support for acute hospital services to move to genuine 7-day models, including access to multidisciplinary team assessment. This study aimed to identify factors that might enable an effective and cost-effective weekend allied health services on acute hospital wards. METHODS: This qualitative study included 22 focus groups within acute wards with a weekend allied health service and 11 telephone interviews with weekend service providers. Data were collected from 210 hospital team members, including 17 medical, 97 nursing, and 96 allied health professionals from two Australian tertiary public hospitals. All were recorded and imported into nVivo 10 for analysis. Thematic analysis methods were used to develop a coding framework from the data and to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Key themes identified were separated into issues perceived as being enablers or barriers to the effective or cost-effective delivery of weekend allied health services. Perceived enablers of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness included prioritizing interventions that prevent decline, the right person delivering the right service, improved access to the patient's family, and ability to impact patient flow. Perceived barriers were employment of inexperienced weekend staff, insufficient investment to see tangible benefit, inefficiencies related to double-handling, unnecessary interventions and/or inappropriate referrals, and difficulty recruiting and retaining skilled staff. CONCLUSIONS: Suggestions for ensuring effective and cost effective weekend allied health care models include minimization of task duplication and targeting interventions so that the right patients receive the right interventions at the right time. Further research into the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of these services should factor in hidden costs, including those associated with managing the service.

Study protocol for two randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness and safety of current weekend allied health services and a new stakeholder-driven model for acute medical/surgical patients versus no weekend allied health services.

BACKGROUND: Disinvestment from inefficient or ineffective health services is a growing priority for health care systems. Provision of allied health services over the weekend is now commonplace despite a relative paucity of evidence supporting their provision. The relatively high cost of providing this service combined with the paucity of evidence supporting its provision makes this a potential candidate for disinvestment so that resources consumed can be used in other areas. This study aims to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of the current model of weekend allied health service and a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery on acute medical and surgical wards compared to having no weekend allied health service. METHODS/DESIGN: Two stepped wedge, cluster randomised trials of weekend allied health services will be conducted in six acute medical/surgical wards across two public metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne (Australia). Wards have been chosen to participate by management teams at each hospital. The allied health services to be investigated will include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work and allied health assistants. At baseline, all wards will be receiving weekend allied health services. Study 1 intervention will be the sequential disinvestment (roll-in) of the current weekend allied health service model from each participating ward in monthly intervals and study 2 will be the roll-out of a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery. The order in which weekend allied health services will be rolled in and out amongst participating wards will be determined randomly. This trial will be conducted in each of the two participating hospitals at a different time interval. Primary outcomes will be length of stay, rate of unplanned hospital readmission within 28 days and rate of adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be number of complaints and compliments, staff absenteeism, and patient discharge destination, satisfaction, and functional independence at discharge. DISCUSSION: This is the world's first application of the recently described non-inferiority (roll-in) stepped wedge trial design, and the largest investigation of the effectiveness of weekend allied health services on acute medical surgical wards to date. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613001231730 (first study) and ACTRN12613001361796 (second study). Was this trial prospectively registered?: Yes. Date registered: 8 November 2013 (first study), 12 December 2013 (second study). Anticipated completion: June 2015. Protocol version: 1. Role of trial sponsor: KP and DL are directly employed by one of the trial sponsors, their roles were: KP assisted with overall development of research design and assisted with overall project management; DL contributed to project management, administration and communications strategy.

Breakeven, cost benefit, cost effectiveness, and willingness to pay for web-based versus face-to-face education delivery for health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of Web-based education and open universities has seen an increase in access to professional development within the health professional education marketplace. Economic efficiencies of Web-based education and traditional face-to-face educational approaches have not been compared under randomized controlled trial conditions. OBJECTIVE: To compare costs and effects of Web-based and face-to-face short courses in falls prevention education for health professionals. METHODS: We designed two short courses to improve the clinical performance of health professionals in exercise prescription for falls prevention. One was developed for delivery in face-to-face mode and the other for online learning. Data were collected on learning outcomes including participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice, and combined with costs, savings, and benefits, to enable a break-even analysis from the perspective of the provider, cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health service, and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant. RESULTS: Face-to-face and Web-based delivery modalities produced comparable outcomes for participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice. Break-even analysis identified the Web-based educational approach to be robustly superior to face-to-face education, requiring a lower number of enrollments for the program to reach its break-even point. Cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspective of the health service and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant favored face-to-face education, although the outcomes were contingent on the sensitivity analysis applied (eg, the fee structure used). CONCLUSIONS: The Web-based educational approach was clearly more efficient from the perspective of the education provider. In the presence of relatively equivocal results for comparisons from other stakeholder perspectives, it is likely that providers would prefer to deliver education via a Web-based medium. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN): 12610000135011; http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?id=335135 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/668POww4L).