Impact and experiences of delayed discharge: A mixed-studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The impact of delayed discharge on patients, health-care staff and hospital costs has been incompletely characterized. AIM: To systematically review experiences of delay from the perspectives of patients, health professionals and hospitals, and its impact on patients' outcomes and costs. METHODS: Four of the main biomedical databases were searched for the period 2000-2016 (February). Quantitative, qualitative and health economic studies conducted in OECD countries were included. RESULTS: Thirty-seven papers reporting data on 35 studies were identified: 10 quantitative, 8 qualitative and 19 exploring costs. Seven of ten quantitative studies were at moderate/low methodological quality; 6 qualitative studies were deemed reliable; and the 19 studies on costs were of moderate quality. Delayed discharge was associated with mortality, infections, depression, reductions in patients' mobility and their daily activities. The qualitative studies highlighted the pressure to reduce discharge delays on staff stress and interprofessional relationships, with implications for patient care and well-being. Extra bed-days could account for up to 30.7% of total costs and cause cancellations of elective operations, treatment delay and repercussions for subsequent services, especially for elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: The poor quality of the majority of the research means that implications for practice should be cautiously made. However, the results suggest that the adverse effects of delayed discharge are both direct (through increased opportunities for patients to acquire avoidable ill health) and indirect, secondary to the pressures placed on staff. These findings provide impetus to take a more holistic perspective to addressing delayed discharge.

Inequalities in receipt of mental and physical healthcare in people with dementia in the UK.

Background: UK Dementia Strategies prioritise fair access to mental and physical healthcare. We investigated whether there are inequalities by deprivation or gender in healthcare received by people with dementia, and compared healthcare received by people with and without dementia. Methods: we investigated primary care records of 68,061 community dwelling dementia patients and 259,337 people without dementia (2002-13). We tested hypotheses that people with dementia from more deprived areas, and who are women receive more psychotropic medication, fewer surgery consultations, are less likely to receive annual blood pressure, weight monitoring and an annual review, compared with those from less deprived areas and men. Results: only half of people with dementia received a documented annual review. Deprivation was not associated with healthcare received. Compared to men with dementia, women with dementia had lower rates of surgery consultations (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.90-0.91), of annual blood pressure monitoring (adjusted IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.97) and of annual weight monitoring (adjusted IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90-0.93). Men with dementia were less likely to be taking psychotropic medication than women with dementia. People with dementia had fewer surgery consultations and were less likely to have their weight and blood pressure monitored at least annually, compared to the non-dementia group. Conclusions: people with dementia, in particular women, appear to receive less primary healthcare, but take more psychotropic medication that may negatively impact their physical health. Reducing these inequalities and improving access of people with dementia to preventative healthcare could improve the health of people with dementia.

Use of a formal consensus development technique to produce recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health multidisciplinary team meetings.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the core mechanism for delivering mental health care but it is unclear which models improve care quality. The aim of the study was to agree recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health MDT meetings, based on national guidance, research evidence and experiential insights from mental health and other medical specialties. METHODS: We established an expert panel of 16 health care professionals, policy-makers and patient representatives. Five panellists had experience in a range of adult mental health services, five in heart failure services and six in cancer services. Panellists privately rated 68 potential recommendations on a scale of one to nine, and re-rated them after panel discussion using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to determine consensus. RESULTS: We obtained agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in extent of agreement (Mean Absolute Deviation from Median of ≤1.11) for 21 recommendations. These included the explicit agreement and auditing of MDT meeting objectives, and the documentation and monitoring of treatment plan implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Formal consensus development methods that involved learning across specialities led to feasible recommendations for improved MDT meeting effectiveness in a wide range of settings. Our findings may be used by adult mental health teams to reflect on their practice and facilitate improvement. In some other contexts, the recommendations will require modification. For example, in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, context-specific issues such as the role of carers should be taken into account. A limitation of the comparative approach adopted was that only five members of the panel of 16 experts were mental health specialists.

Bias measuring bias.

The British National Health Service and other publicly funded health systems operate on the principle that health care should be provided solely on the basis of need. Yet the literature abounds with reports of bias in health care use. In order to defend such a charge, two conditions must be met. The first condition is that treatment decisions must be shown to be unfair in that they are not made solely on the basis of need. This paper demonstrates the importance of considering the fair distribution of health care from two, related, perspectives. The first is that people with equal needs should be treated the same (equal use for equal need). This is referred to as the achievement of horizontal equity. The alternative perspective is that people with greater needs should have more treatment than those with lesser needs (unequal use for unequal need). This is referred to as the achievement of vertical equity. Although these perspectives are logically linked, demonstration of equal use for equal need does not necessarily indicate unequal use for unequal need. This is because it cannot be assumed that equal use occurs at every level of need. The second condition that must be met is that clinical judgement must be shown to be influenced by prejudicial notions about patients. Such research is fraught with methodological difficulties, and the charge of biased clinical decision-making is usually made as a result of a process of exclusion. Methods that could be used to examine the extent to which inequalities in health care use are due to bias are described.