Improving Healthcare Quality and Clinical Outcomes for Persons with Dementia in the Sub-Acute Hospital Through Person-Centered Care Practice.

Background: Person-centered care is considered beneficial for persons with dementia. Objective: To evaluate the impact of a person-centered knowledge translation intervention on the quality of healthcare and outcomes for persons with dementia. Methods: Over nine months, sub-acute hospital nursing, allied health, and medical staff (n = 90) participated in online and/or face-to-face person-centered education and were supported by senior nursing, allied health, and medical staff champions (n = 8) to implement person-centered healthcare. The quality of healthcare service, ward climate and care delivery were evaluated pre/post study intervention. In the week following hospital admission (Time 1) and week of discharge (Time 3), agitation incidence (co-primary outcome) was assessed in participants with dementia (n = 80). Participant delirium (co-primary outcome), accidents/injuries, psychotropic medicines, length of stay, readmission and discharge destination (secondary outcomes) were compared with a retrospective group (n = 77) matched on demographics, cognition and function in activities of daily living. Results: Improvements occurred post-intervention in service quality by 17.5% (p = 0.369, phi = 0.08), ward climate by 18.1% (p = 0.291, phi = 0.08), and care quality by 50% (p = 0.000, phi = 0.37). Participant agitation did not change from Time 1 to Time 3 (p = 0.223). Relative to the retrospective group, significant reductions occurred in participant delirium (p = 0.000, phi = 0.73), incidents/injuries (p = 0.000, phi = 0.99), psychotropic medicine use (p = 0.030, phi = 0.09), and hospital readmissions within 30 days (p = 0.002, phi = 0.25), but not in discharge to home (p = 0.171). Conclusions: When person-centered healthcare knowledge is translated through staff education and practice support, persons with dementia can experience improved healthcare services and clinical outcomes, while healthcare services can benefit through reductions in unplanned service use.

Treatment patterns and out-of-hospital healthcare resource utilisation by patients with advanced cancer living with pain: An analysis from the Stop Cancer PAIN trial.

BACKGROUND: About 70% of patients with advanced cancer experience pain. Few studies have investigated the use of healthcare in this population and the relationship between pain intensity and costs. METHODS: Adults with advanced cancer and scored worst pain ≥ 2/10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS) were recruited from 6 Australian oncology/palliative care outpatient services to the Stop Cancer PAIN trial (08/15-06/19). Out-of-hospital, publicly funded services, prescriptions and costs were estimated for the three months before pain screening. Descriptive statistics summarize the clinico-demographic variables, health services and costs, treatments and pain scores. Relationships with costs were explored using Spearman correlations, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and a gamma log-link generalized linear model. RESULTS: Overall, 212 participants had median worst pain scores of five (inter-quartile range 4). The most frequently prescribed medications were opioids (60.1%) and peptic ulcer/gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) drugs (51.6%). The total average healthcare cost in the three months before the census date was A$6,742 (95% CI $5,637, $7,847), approximately $27,000 annually. Men had higher mean healthcare costs than women, adjusting for age, cancer type and pain levels (men $7,872, women $4,493, p<0.01) and higher expenditure on prescriptions (men $5,559, women $2,034, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this population with pain and cancer, there was no clear relationship between healthcare costs and pain severity. These treatment patterns requiring further exploration including the prevalence of peptic ulcer/GORD drugs, and lipid lowering agents and the higher healthcare costs for men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12615000064505. World Health Organisation unique trial number U1111-1164-4649. Registered 23 January 2015.

Modelling the cost of place of birth: a pathway analysis.

BACKGROUND: In New South Wales (NSW), Australia there are three settings available for women at low risk of complications to give birth: home, birth centre and hospital. Between 2000 and 2012, 93.6% of babies were planned to be born in hospital, 6.0% in a birth centre and 0.4% at home. Availability of alternative birth settings is limited and the cost of providing birth at home or in a birth centre from the perspective of the health system is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to model the cost of the trajectories of women who planned to give birth at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital from the public sector perspective. METHODS: This was a population-based study using linked datasets from NSW, Australia. Women included met the following selection criteria: 37-41 completed weeks of pregnancy, spontaneous onset of labour, and singleton pregnancy at low risk of complications. We used a decision tree framework to depict the trajectories of these women and Australian Refined-Diagnosis Related Groups (AR-DRGs) were applied to each trajectory to estimate the cost of birth. A scenario analysis was undertaken to model the cost for 30 000 women in one year. FINDINGS: 496 387 women were included in the dataset. Twelve potential outcome pathways were identified and each pathway was costed using AR-DRGs. An overall cost was also calculated by place of birth: $AUD4802 for homebirth, $AUD4979 for a birth centre birth and $AUD5463 for a hospital birth. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study provides some clarity into the financial saving of offering more options to women seeking an alternative to giving birth in hospital. Given the relatively lower rates of complex intervention and neonatal outcomes associated with women at low risk of complications, we can assume the cost of providing them with homebirth and birth centre options could be cost-effective.

Clinicians' delirium treatment practice, practice change, and influences: A national online survey.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies cast doubt on the net effect of antipsychotics for delirium. AIM: To investigate the influence of these studies and other factors on clinicians' delirium treatment practice and practice change in palliative care and other specialties using the Theoretical Domains Framework. DESIGN: Australia-wide online survey of relevant clinicians. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Registered nurses (72%), doctors (16%), nurse practitioners (6%) and pharmacists (5%) who cared for patients with delirium in diverse settings, recruited through health professionals' organisations. RESULTS: Most of the sample (n = 475): worked in geriatrics/aged (31%) or palliative care (30%); in hospitals (64%); and saw a new patient with delirium at least weekly (61%). More (59%) reported delirium practice change since 2016, mostly by increased non-pharmacological interventions (53%). Fifty-five percent reported current antipsychotic use for delirium, primarily for patient distress (79%) and unsafe behaviour (67%). Common Theoretical Domains Framework categories of influences on respondents' delirium practice were: emotion (54%); knowledge (53%) and physical (43%) and social (21%) opportunities. Palliative care respondents more often reported: awareness of any named key study of antipsychotics for delirium (73% vs 39%, p < 0.001); changed delirium treatment (73% vs 53%, p = 0.017); decreased pharmacological interventions (60% vs 15%, p < 0.001); off-label medication use (86% vs 51%, p < 0.001: antipsychotics 79% vs 44%, p < 0.001; benzodiazepines 61% vs 26%, p < 0.001) and emotion as an influence (82% vs 39%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinicians' use of antipsychotic during delirium remains common and is primarily motivated by distress and safety concerns for the patient and others nearby. Supporting clinicians to achieve evidence-based delirium practice requires further work.

A Multicomponent Nonpharmacological Intervention to Prevent Delirium for Hospitalized People with Advanced Cancer: A Phase II Cluster Randomized Waitlist Controlled Trial (The PRESERVE Pilot Study).

Background: Delirium is a common debilitating complication of advanced cancer. Objective: To determine if a multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium prevention intervention was feasible for adult patients with advanced cancer, before a phase III (efficacy) trial. Design: Phase II (feasibility) cluster randomized controlled trial. All sites implemented delirium screening and diagnostic assessment. Strategies within sleep, vision and hearing, hydration, orientation, mobility, and family domains were delivered to enrolled patients at intervention site admission days 1-7. Control sites then implemented the intervention ("waitlist sites"). Setting: Four Australian palliative care units. Measurements: The primary outcome was adherence, with an a priori endpoint of at least 60% patients achieving full adherence. Secondary outcomes were interdisciplinary care delivery, delirium measures, and adverse events, analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Results: Sixty-five enrolled patients (25 control, 20 intervention, and 20 waitlist) had 98% delirium screens and 75% diagnostic assessments completed. Nurses (67%), physicians (16%), allied health (8.4%), family (7%), patients (1%), and volunteers (0.5%) delivered the intervention. There was full adherence for 5% patients at intervention sites, partial for 25%. Both full and partial adherence were higher at waitlist sites: 25% and 45%, respectively. One-third of control site patients (32%) became delirious within seven days of admission compared to one-fifth (20%) at both intervention and waitlist sites (p = 0.5). Mean (standard deviation) Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-1998 scores were 16.8 + 12.0 control sites versus 18.4 + 8.2 (p = 0.6) intervention and 18.7 + 7.8 (p = 0.5) waitlist sites. The intervention caused no adverse events. Conclusion: The intervention requires modification for optimal adherence in a phase III trial.

Mapping the trajectories for women and their babies from births planned at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital in New South Wales, Australia, between 2000 and 2012.

BACKGROUND: In New South Wales (NSW) Australia, women at low risk of complications can choose from three birth settings: home, birth centre and hospital. Between 2000 and 2012, around 6.4% of pregnant women planned to give birth in a birth centre (6%) or at home (0.4%) and 93.6% of women planned to birth in a hospital. A proportion of the woman in the home and birth centre groups transferred to hospital. However, their pathways or trajectories are largely unknown. AIM: The aim was to map the trajectories and interventions experienced by women and their babies from births planned at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital over a 13-year period in NSW. METHODS: Using population-based linked datasets from NSW, women at low risk of complications, with singleton pregnancies, gestation 37-41 completed weeks and spontaneous onset of labour were included. We used a decision tree framework to depict the trajectories of these women and estimate the probabilities of the following: giving birth in their planned setting; being transferred; requiring interventions and neonatal admission to higher level hospital care. The trajectories were analysed by parity. RESULTS: Over a 13-year period, 23% of nulliparous and 0.8% of multiparous women planning a home birth were transferred to hospital. In the birth centre group, 34% of nulliparae and 12% of multiparas were transferred to a hospital. Normal vaginal birth rates were higher in multiparous women compared to nulliparous women in all settings. Neonatal admission to SCN/NICU was highest in the planned hospital group for nulliparous women (10.1%), 7.1% for nulliparous women planning a birth centre birth and 5.1% of nulliparous women planning a homebirth. Multiparas had lower admissions to SCN/NICU for all thee settings (hospital 6.3%, BC 3.6%, home 1.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Women who plan to give birth at home or in a birth centre have high rates of vaginal birth, even when transferred to hospital. Evidence on the trajectories of women who choose to give birth at home or in birth centres will assist the planning, costing and expansion of models of care in NSW.

Inclusion, characteristics and outcomes of people requiring palliative care in studies of non-pharmacological interventions for delirium: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common, distressing, serious and under-researched in specialist palliative care settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether people requiring palliative care were included in non-pharmacological delirium intervention studies in inpatient settings, how they were characterised and what their outcomes were. DESIGN: Systematic review (PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017062178). DATA SOURCES: Systematic search in March 2017 for non-pharmacological delirium intervention studies in adult inpatients. Database search terms were 'delirium', 'hospitalisation', 'inpatient', 'palliative care', 'hospice', 'critical care' and 'geriatrics'. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodological checklists guided risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: The 29 included studies were conducted between 1994 and 2015 in diverse settings in 15 countries (9136 participants, mean age = 76.5 years (SD = 8.1), 56% women). Most studies tested multicomponent interventions (n = 26) to prevent delirium (n = 19). Three-quarters of the 29 included studies (n = 22) excluded various groups of people requiring palliative care; however, inclusion criteria, participant diagnoses, illness severity and mortality indicated their presence in almost all studies (n = 26). Of these, 21 studies did not characterise participants requiring palliative care or report their specific outcomes (72%), four reported outcomes for older people with frailty, dementia, cancer and comorbidities, and one was explicitly focused on people receiving palliative care. Study heterogeneity and limitations precluded definitive determination of intervention effectiveness and only allowed interpretations of feasibility for people requiring palliative care. Acceptability outcomes (intervention adverse events and patients' subjective experience) were rarely reported overall. CONCLUSION: Non-pharmacological delirium interventions have frequently excluded and under-characterised people requiring palliative care and infrequently reported their outcomes.

Multicomponent non-pharmacological intervention to prevent delirium for hospitalised people with advanced cancer: study protocol for a phase II cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is a significant medical complication for hospitalised patients. Up to one-third of delirium episodes are preventable in older inpatients through non-pharmacological strategies that support essential human needs, such as physical and cognitive activity, sleep, hydration, vision and hearing. We hypothesised that a multicomponent intervention similarly may decrease delirium incidence, and/or its duration and severity, in inpatients with advanced cancer. Prior to a phase III trial, we aimed to determine if a multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention is feasible and acceptable for this specific inpatient group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a phase II cluster randomised wait-listed controlled trial involving inpatients with advanced cancer at four Australian palliative care inpatient units. Intervention sites will introduce delirium screening, diagnostic assessment and a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with six domains of care: preserving natural sleep; maintaining optimal vision and hearing; optimising hydration; promoting communication, orientation and cognition; optimising mobility; and promoting family partnership. Interdisciplinary teams will tailor intervention delivery to each site and to patient need. Control sites will first introduce only delirium screening and diagnosis, later implementing the intervention, modified according to initial results. The primary outcome is adherence to the intervention during the first seven days of admission, measured for 40 consecutively admitted eligible patients. Secondary outcomes relate to fidelity and feasibility, acceptability and sustainability of the study intervention, processes and measures in this patient population, using quantitative and qualitative measures. Delirium incidence and severity will be measured to inform power calculations for a future phase III trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained for all four sites. Trial results, qualitative substudy findings and implementation of the intervention will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and reported at conferences, to study sites and key peak bodies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001070325; Pre-results.