Implementation evaluation of a stepped approach to home care assessment using interRAI systems in Ontario, Canada.

In Ontario, new home care clients are screened with the interRAI Contact Assessment and only those expected to require longer-term services receive the comprehensive RAI-Home Care assessment. Although Ontario adopted this two-step approach in 2010, it is unknown whether the assessment guidelines were implemented as intended. To evaluate implementation fidelity, the purpose of this study is to compare expected to actual client profiles and care co-ordinator practice patterns. We linked interRAI CA and RAI-HC assessments and home care referrals and services data for a retrospective cohort of adult home care clients admitted in FY 2016/17. All assessments were done by trained health professionals as part of routine practice. Descriptive analyses were used to evaluate congruency between recommended and actual practice. Adjusted cause-specific hazards and logistic approaches were used to examine time to RAI-HC assessment and being a high-priority client. Of 225,989 unique home care clients admitted to the publicly funded home care program, about three-quarters of clients were assessed with the interRAI CA only (27.9% completed the Preliminary Screener only and 46.6% completed both the Preliminary Screener and Clinical Evaluation). There was substantial agreement between the skip logic and completion of the Clinical Evaluation section (Cohen's kappa = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.66-0.67]). One-quarter of clients were assessed with both the interRAI CA and RAI-HC. As expected, RAI-HC assessed clients were older, reported more health needs, and often received home care services for >6 months. Clients in higher Assessment Urgency Algorithm (AUA) levels were significantly more likely to receive a RAI-HC assessment and be assigned to a higher home care priority level; however, 28.3% of clients in the highest AUA level did not receive a RAI-HC assessment. We conclude that the use of the interRAI CA and RAI-HC balances the investment of time and resources with the information and tools to deliver high-quality, holistic, and client-centred care. The interRAI CA guides the care co-ordinator to screen every client for a broad range of possible needs and tailor further assessment to each client's unique needs. We recommend integrating the AUA into provincial assessment guidelines as well as developing a new quality indicator focused on measuring access to the home care system.

Treatment modalities and risk of adverse events associated with biologic therapy: A 10-year observational review of the Australasian Psoriasis Registry.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting ~2-3% of the Australasian population. Therapeutic options include topical agents, phototherapy, systemic immunomodulators and biologic agents. Biologics present an acceptable short- and medium-term safety profile, derived mainly from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and, however, may not represent real-world rates of adverse events (AEs). METHODS: A retrospective, observational study of patients enrolled in The Australasian Psoriasis Registry from April 2008 to October 2018 was conducted. Data were collected from 104 sites in Australia and New Zealand. Patient characteristics, treatments and AE data were collected. AEs were classified by MedDRA System events. RESULTS: 2094 patients were included (3765 patient-treatments), comprising; 1110 phototherapy, 1280 systemic and 1375 biologic therapy patient-treatments. Treatment arms were not mutually exclusive. The mean ± SD from date of diagnosis of psoriasis to commencement of biologic therapy was 8.9 ± 12.3 years. Methotrexate had the longest exposure time (3740.3 patient-years), and ustekinumab had the longest median (95% CI) time on treatment, 4.3 years (2.2, 6.6). AE differences on biologic treatment were present between patients who would have been eligible or ineligible for RCTs. Approximately 29% of registry patients would have been excluded from clinical trials enrolment. Patients ineligible for RCTs had increased adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) of: infections and infestations (2.3, 1.7-3.1; P < 0.001), cardiac (8.2, 3.5-25.6; P < 0.001), gastrointestinal (3.5, 1.52-8.0; P < 0.001), hepatobiliary (5.6 1.7-19.1; P < 0.001), psychiatric (4.7, 1.5-14.1; P = 0.006) and eye disorders (4.8 1.5-15.6; P = 0.008), compared to those eligible for RCTs. Incidence rates in the trial eligible patients were similar to those reported from RCT rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes treatment modalities in use for severe psoriasis and the clinical rates of AEs associated with biologic therapy.