Predictors of short-term hospitalization and emergency department presentations in aged care.

OBJECTIVES: To examine individual, medication, system, and healthcare related predictors of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) presentation within 90 days of entering the aged care sector, and to create risk-profiles associated with these outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Registry of Senior Australians. PARTICIPANTS: Older people (aged 65 and older) with an aged care eligibility assessment in South Australia between January 1, 2013 and May 31, 2016 (N = 22,130). MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were unplanned hospitalization and ED presentation within 90 days of assessment. Individual, medication, system, and healthcare related predictors of the outcomes at the time of assessment, within 90 days or 1-year prior. Fine-Gray models were used to calculate subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Harrell's C-index assessed predictive ability. RESULTS: Four thousand nine-hundred and six (22.2%) individuals were hospitalized and 5028 (22.7%) had an ED presentation within 90 days. Predictors of hospitalization included: being a man (hospitalization sHR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.26-1.42), ≥3 urgent after-hours attendances (hospitalization sHR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.39), increasing frailty index score (hospitalization sHR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.28), individuals using glucocorticoids (hospitalization sHR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20), sulfonamides (hospitalization sHR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27), trimethoprim antibiotics (hospitalization sHR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.03-1.29), unplanned hospitalizations 30 days prior (hospitalization sHR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.23), and ED presentations 1 year prior (hospitalization sHR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10). Similar predictors and hazard estimates were also observed for ED presentations. The hospitalization models out-of-sample predictive ability (C-index = 0.653, 95% CI 0.635-0.670) and ED presentations (C-index = 0.647, 95% CI 0.630-0.663) were moderate. CONCLUSIONS: One in five individuals with aged care eligibility assessments had unplanned hospitalizations and/or ED presentation within 90 days with several predictors identified at the time of aged care eligibility assessment. This is an actionable period for targeting at-risk individuals to reduce hospitalizations.

Measuring the financial and productivity burden of paediatric hospitalisation on the wider family network.

AIM: To estimate the non-medical out-of-pocket costs for families with a child in hospital. METHODS: This study was a survey of 225 parents of paediatric inpatients on nine wards of an Australian public paediatric teaching hospital on two separate days. Our primary outcomes were the costs associated with: (i) time taken off work to care for the child in hospital; (ii) time off work or contributed by family and friends to care for other dependents; and (iii) travel, meals, accommodation and incidental expenses during the child's stay. Demographic data included postcode (to assess distance, socio-economic status and remoteness), child's age, ward and whether this was their child's first admission. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 6.5 years (standard deviation 5.2). On an average per patient day basis, parents took 1.12 days off work and spent 0.61 (standard deviation 0.53) nights away from home, with 83.8% of nights away at the child's bedside. Parents spent Australian dollars (AUD)89 per day on travel and AUD36 on meals and accommodation. Total costs (including productivity costs) were AUD589 per patient day. Higher costs per patient day were correlated with living in a more remote area (0.48) and a greater travel distance to the hospital (0.41). A higher number of days off work was correlated (0.69) with number of school days missed. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the considerable time and financial resources expended by families caring for a child in hospital and are important inputs in evaluating health-care interventions that affect risk of hospitalisation and length of stay in paediatric care.

Frailty prevalence in Australia: Findings from four pooled Australian cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE: To examine frailty prevalence in Australian older adults. METHODS: Frailty was measured using a modified Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) in a combined cohort of 8804 Australian adults aged ≥65 years (female 86%, median age 80 (79-82) years) from the Dynamic Analyses to Optimise Ageing Project and the North West Adelaide Health Study. RESULTS: Using the FFP, 21% of participants were frail while a further 48% were prefrail. Chi-squared testing of frailty among four age groups (65-69, 70-74, 75-79 and 80-84 years) for sex, and marital status revealed that frailty was significantly higher for women (approximately double that of men), increased significantly with advancing age for both sexes, and was significantly higher for women who were widowed, divorced or never married. CONCLUSION: If frailty could be prevented or reversed, it would have an impact on a larger number of older people.

Feasibility, acceptability and diagnostic test accuracy of frailty screening instruments in community-dwelling older people within the Australian general practice setting: a study protocol for a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is one of the most challenging aspects of population ageing due to its association with increased risk of poor health outcomes and quality of life. General practice provides an ideal setting for the prevention and management of frailty via the implementation of preventive measures such as early identification through screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our study will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and diagnostic test accuracy of several screening instruments in diagnosing frailty among community-dwelling Australians aged 75+ years who have recently made an appointment to see their general practitioner (GP). We will recruit 240 participants across 2 general practice sites within South Australia. We will invite eligible patients to participate and consent to the study via mail. Consenting participants will attend a screening appointment to undertake the index tests: 2 self-reported (Reported Edmonton Frail Scale and Kihon Checklist) and 5 (Frail Scale, Groningen Frailty Index, Program on Research for Integrating Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy (PRISMA-7), Edmonton Frail Scale and Gait Speed Test) administered by a practice nurse (a Registered Nurse working in general practice). We will randomise test order to reduce bias. Psychosocial measures will also be collected via questionnaire at the appointment. A blinded researcher will then administer two reference standards (the Frailty Phenotype and Adelaide Frailty Index). We will determine frailty by a cut-point of 3 of 5 criteria for the Phenotype and 9 of 42 items for the AFI. We will determine accuracy by analysis of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. We will assess feasibility and acceptability by: 1) collecting data about the instruments prior to collection; 2) interviewing screeners after data collection; 3) conducting a pilot survey with a 10% sample of participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Torrens University Higher Research Ethics Committee has approved this study. We will disseminate findings via publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant conferences.

Better informing decision making with multiple outcomes cost-effectiveness analysis under uncertainty in cost-disutility space.

INTRODUCTION: Comparing multiple, diverse outcomes with cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is important, yet challenging in areas like palliative care where domains are unamenable to integration with survival. Generic multi-attribute utility values exclude important domains and non-health outcomes, while partial analyses-where outcomes are considered separately, with their joint relationship under uncertainty ignored-lead to incorrect inference regarding preferred strategies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to consider whether such decision making can be better informed with alternative presentation and summary measures, extending methods previously shown to have advantages in multiple strategy comparison. METHODS: Multiple outcomes CEA of a home-based palliative care model (PEACH) relative to usual care is undertaken in cost disutility (CDU) space and compared with analysis on the cost-effectiveness plane. Summary measures developed for comparing strategies across potential threshold values for multiple outcomes include: expected net loss (ENL) planes quantifying differences in expected net benefit; the ENL contour identifying preferred strategies minimising ENL and their expected value of perfect information; and cost-effectiveness acceptability planes showing probability of strategies minimising ENL. RESULTS: Conventional analysis suggests PEACH is cost-effective when the threshold value per additional day at home (𝕜1) exceeds $1,068 or dominated by usual care when only the proportion of home deaths is considered. In contrast, neither alternative dominate in CDU space where cost and outcomes are jointly considered, with the optimal strategy depending on threshold values. For example, PEACH minimises ENL when 𝕜1=$2,000 and 𝕜2=$2,000 (threshold value for dying at home), with a 51.6% chance of PEACH being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Comparison in CDU space and associated summary measures have distinct advantages to multiple domain comparisons, aiding transparent and robust joint comparison of costs and multiple effects under uncertainty across potential threshold values for effect, better informing net benefit assessment and related reimbursement and research decisions.

Is home-based palliative care cost-effective? An economic evaluation of the Palliative Care Extended Packages at Home (PEACH) pilot.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a home-based palliative care model relative to usual care in expediting discharge or enabling patients to remain at home. DESIGN: Economic evaluation of a pilot randomised controlled trial with 28 days follow-up. METHODS: Mean costs and effectiveness were calculated for the Palliative Care Extended Packages at Home (PEACH) and usual care arms including: days at home; place of death; PEACH intervention costs; specialist palliative care service use; acute hospital and palliative care unit inpatient stays; and outpatient visits. RESULTS: PEACH mean intervention costs per patient ($3489) were largely offset by lower mean inpatient care costs ($2450) and in this arm, participants were at home for one additional day on average. Consequently, PEACH is cost-effective relative to usual care when the threshold value for one extra day at home exceeds $1068, or $2547 if only within-study days of hospital admission are costed. All estimates are high uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this small pilot study point to the potential of PEACH as a cost-effective end-of-life care model relative to usual care. Findings support the feasibility of conducting a definitive, fully powered study with longer follow-up and comprehensive economic evaluation.

Option appraisal of population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in England.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and resource impact of faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) screening options for colorectal cancer to inform the Department of Health's policy on bowel cancer screening in England. METHODS: We developed a state transition model to simulate the life experience of a cohort of individuals without polyps or cancer through to the development of adenomatous polyps and malignant carcinoma and subsequent death in the general population of England. The costs, effects and resource impact of five screening options were evaluated: (a) FOBT for individuals aged 50-69 (biennial screening); (b) FOBT for individuals aged 60-69 (biennial screening); (c) once-only FSIG for individuals aged 55; (d) once-only FSIG for individuals aged 60; and (e) once-only FSIG for individuals aged 60, followed by FOBT for individuals aged 61-70 (biennial screening). RESULTS: The model suggests that screening using FSIG with or without FOBT may be cost-saving and may produce additional benefits compared with a policy of no screening. The marginal cost-effectiveness of FOBT options compared to a policy of no screening is estimated to be below pound3000 per quality adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Screening using FOBT and/or FSIG is potentially a cost-effective strategy for the early detection of colorectal cancer. However, the practical feasibility of alternative screening programmes is inevitably limited by current pressures on endoscopy services.