Patient-reported outcomes in integrated health and social care: A scoping review.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have potential to support integrated health and social care research and practice; however, evidence of their utilisation has not been synthesised. Objective: To identify PRO measures utilised in integrated care and adult social care research and practice and to chart the evidence of implementation factors influencing their uptake. Design: Scoping review of peer-reviewed literature. Data sources: Six databases (01 January 2010 to 19 May 2023). Study selection: Articles reporting PRO use with adults (18+ years) in integrated care or social care settings. Review methods: We screened articles against pre-specified eligibility criteria; 36 studies (23%) were extracted in duplicate for verification. We summarised the data using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Results: We identified 159 articles reporting on 216 PRO measures deployed in a social care or integrated care setting. Most articles used PRO measures as research tools. Eight (5.0%) articles used PRO measures as an intervention. Articles focused on community-dwelling participants (35.8%) or long-term care home residents (23.9%), with three articles (1.9%) focussing on integrated care settings. Stakeholders viewed PROs as feasible and acceptable, with benefits for care planning, health and wellbeing monitoring as well as quality assurance. Patient-reported outcome measure selection, administration and PRO data management were perceived implementation barriers. Conclusion: This scoping review showed increasing utilisation of PROs in adult social care and integrated care. Further research is needed to optimise PROs for care planning, design effective training resources and develop policies and service delivery models that prioritise secure, ethical management of PRO data.

An integrated understanding of the impact of hospital at home: a mixed-methods study to articulate and test a programme theory.

BACKGROUND: Hospital at Home (HaH) provides intensive, hospital-level care in patients' homes for acute conditions that would normally require hospitalisation, using multidisciplinary teams. As a programme of complex medical-social interventions, a HaH programme theory has not been fully articulated although implicit in the structures, functions, and activities of the existing HaH services. We aimed to unearth the tacit theory from international evidence and test the soundness of it by studying UK HaH services. METHODS: We conducted a literature review (29 articles) adopting a 'realist review' approach (theory articulation) and examined 11 UK-based services by interviewing up to 3 staff members from each service (theory testing). The review and interview data were analysed using Framework Analysis and Purposive Text Analysis. RESULTS: The programme theory has three components- the organisational, utilisation and impact theories. The impact theory consists of key assumptions about the change processes brought about by HaH's activities and functions, as detailed in the organisational and utilisation theories. HaH teams should encompass multiple disciplines to deliver comprehensive assessments and have skill sets for physically delivering hospital-level processes of care in the home. They should aim to treat a broad range of conditions in patients who are clinically complex and felt to be vulnerable to hospital acquired harms. Services should cover 7 days a week, have plans for 24/7 response and deliver relational continuity of care through consistent staffing. As a result, patients' and carers' knowledge, skills, and confidence in disease management and self-care should be strengthened with a sense of safety during HaH treatment, and carers better supported to fulfil their role with minimal added care burden. CONCLUSIONS: There are organisational factors for HaH services and healthcare processes that contribute to better experience of care and outcomes for patients. HaH services should deliver care using hospital level processes through teams that have a focus on holistic and individually tailored care with continuity of therapeutic relationships between professionals and patients and carers resulting in less complexity and fragmentation of care. This analysis informs how HaH services can organise resources and design processes of care to optimise patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Care pathways in older patients seen in a multidisciplinary same day emergency care (SDEC) unit.

BACKGROUND: Same day emergency care (SDEC) services are being advocated in the UK for frail, older patients in whom hospitalisation may be associated with harm but there are few data on the 'ambulatory pathway'. We therefore determined the patient pathways pre- and post-first assessment in a SDEC unit focussed on older people. METHODS: In consecutive patients, we prospectively recorded follow-up SDEC service reviews (face-to-face, telephone, Hospital-at-Home domiciliary visits), outpatient referrals (e.g. to specialist clinics, imaging, and community/voluntary/social services), and hospital admissions <30 days. In the first 67 patients, we also recorded healthcare interactions (except GP attendances) in the 180 days pre- and post-first assessment. RESULTS: Among 533 patients (mean/SD age = 75.0/17.5 years, 246, 46% deemed frail) assessed in an SDEC unit, 210 were admitted within 30 days (152 immediately). In the 381(71%) remaining initially ambulatory, there were 587 SDEC follow-up reviews and 747 other outpatient referrals (mean = 3.5 per patient) with only 34 (9%) patients being discharged with no further follow-up. In the subset (n = 67), the number of 'healthcare days' was greater in the 180 days post- versus pre-SDEC assessment (mean/SD = 26/27 versus 13/22 days, P = 0.003) even after excluding hospital admission days, with greater healthcare days in frail versus non-frail patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: SDEC assessment in older, frail patients was associated with a 2-fold increase in frequency of healthcare interactions with complex care pathways involving multiple services. Our findings have implications for the development of admission-avoidance models including cost-effectiveness and optimal delivery of the multi-dimensional aspects of acute geriatric care in the ambulatory setting.

Acute care models for older people living with frailty: a systematic review and taxonomy.

BACKGROUND: The need to improve the acute care pathway to meet the care needs of older people living with frailty is a strategic priority for many healthcare systems. The optimal care model for this patient group is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to derive a taxonomy of acute care models for older people with acute medical illness and describe the outcomes used to assess their effectiveness. Care models providing time-limited episodes of care (up to 14 days) within 48 h of presentation to patients over the age of 65 with acute medical illness were included. Care models based in hospital and community settings were eligible. Searches were undertaken in Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Interventions were described and classified in detail using a modified version of the TIDIeR checklist for complex interventions. Outcomes were described and classified using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 and ROBINS-I. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 103 articles. Four classes of acute care model were identified, acute-bed based care, hospital at home, emergency department in-reach and care home models. The field is dominated by small single centre randomised and non-randomised studies. Most studies were judged to be at risk of bias. A range of outcome measures were reported with little consistency between studies. Evidence of effectiveness was limited. CONCLUSION: Acute care models for older people living with frailty are heterogenous. The clinical effectiveness of these models cannot be conclusively established from the available evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration (CRD42021279131).

Performance of admission pathways within acute medicine services: Analysis from the Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit 2022 and comparison with performance 2019 - 2021.

Urgent and emergency care services face increasing pressure, impacting patient care. We evaluated the performance of acute medicine services, assessing clinical quality indicators for unplanned medical admissions to acute hospital services. 152 acute UK hospital services accepting unplanned admissions to acute and general internal medicine completed a day-of-care survey incorporating organisational structure questionnaire and patient-level data over a pre-defined 24-hour period in June 2022. Clinical quality indicators were: Early Warning Score (EWS) measurement within 30 min of hospital arrival; clinician assessment within 4 h; assessment by consultant physician within 6 h (daytime) or 14 h (night-time). Results were compared with 2019, 2020, 2021. 7293 sequential patients were included (and compared with 19,817 patients across 2019-2021). In 2022, 69% of patients (95%CI 67.7-69.9%) had an EWS documented within 30 min. 79% of patients (95%CI 77.8-79.7%) were reviewed by a clinical decision maker within 4 h of hospital arrival. Patients assessed in Same Day Emergency Care services were more likely to meet this target than those assessed in Acute Medical Units or Emergency Departments (OR 2.4, 95%CI 2.02-2.87, p<0.001). Overall, 50% of patients received consultant physician review within the target time (3065/6161, 95%CI 48.5-51.0%); performance varied with time of arrival and location of initial assessment. Performance against all three clinical quality indicators was lower than 2019, 2020 and 2021 (p<0.001 for all). Performance against all quality indicators within acute medicine services is deteriorating. However, performance in Same Day Emergency Care Units is greater than in Acute Medical Units or Emergency Departments.

Bleeding risk in patients prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy after coronary interventions: the ADAPTT retrospective population-based cohort studies.

Background: Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified. Objectives: The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy. Design: The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials. Setting: The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017. Participants: Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome. Data sources: Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics. Interventions: Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events. Results: The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval -£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval -£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195). Conclusions: This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy. Limitations: The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted. Future work: Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People who have a heart attack are treated with a stent to open up the blocked artery that caused the heart attack, with surgery to bypass the blocked artery or with medication only. Whatever the treatment, they are prescribed one or more antiplatelet drugs, either aspirin only or aspirin and an additional antiplatelet (clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor), for 12 months after the heart attack. Antiplatelets are given to prevent another heart attack, but increase the risk of bleeding. We used a large general practice database and a database describing patients' attendances and admissions to hospital to determine how many people bleed with different antiplatelet combinations. We found that, overall, up to 1 in 10 people taking antiplatelets (rising to 2 in 10 if also taking an anticoagulant such as warfarin or dabigatran) reported a bleed. Among patients treated with surgery or medication only, we compared aspirin only (which is a less potent therapy) with aspirin and clopidogrel (a more potent therapy). Among patients treated with stents, we compared aspirin and clopidogrel (less potent therapy) with aspirin and prasugrel or ticagrelor (more potent therapy). In all three populations, the more potent therapy increased the risk of bleeding by about one and a half times, but this was not offset by a reduced risk of having a subsequent heart attack. This may be explained by low adherence to the medication: between one-third and almost half of all patients did not adhere to their regimen, and non-adherence was generally higher among patients taking a more potent therapy. It may also be explained by bias inherent in the study, for example if the groups prescribed different antiplatelet regimens had different risks of having another heart attack. Nevertheless, the results show that doctors should be cautious about prescribing more potent antiplatelet therapy because it may increase serious bleeds without necessarily reducing the number of heart attacks.

CORONA (COre ultRasOund of covid in iNtensive care and Acute medicine) study: National service evaluation of lung and heart ultrasound in intensive care patients with suspected or proven COVID-19.

Background: Combined Lung Ultrasound (LUS) and Focused UltraSound for Intensive Care heart (FUSIC Heart - formerly Focused Intensive Care Echocardiography, FICE) can aid diagnosis, risk stratification and management in COVID-19. However, data on its application and results are limited to small studies in varying countries and hospitals. This United Kingdom (UK) national service evaluation study assessed how combined LUS and FUSIC Heart were used in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Method: Twelve trusts across the UK registered for this prospective study. LUS and FUSIC Heart data were obtained, using a standardised data set including scoring of abnormalities, between 1st February 2020 to 30th July 2020. The scans were performed by intensivists with FUSIC Lung and Heart competency as a minimum standard. Data was anonymised locally prior to transfer to a central database. Results: 372 studies were performed on 265 patients. There was a small but significant relationship between LUS score >8 and 30-day mortality (OR 1.8). Progression of score was associated with an increase in 30-day mortality (OR 1.2). 30-day mortality was increased in patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (49.4% vs 29.2%). Severity of LUS score correlated with RV dysfunction (p < 0.05). Change in management occurred in 65% of patients following a combined scan. Conclusions: In COVID-19 patients, there is an association between lung ultrasound score severity, RV dysfunction and mortality identifiable by combined LUS and FUSIC Heart. The use of 12-point LUS scanning resulted in similar risk score to 6-point imaging in the majority of cases. Our findings suggest that serial combined LUS and FUSIC Heart on COVID-19 ICU patients may aid in clinical decision making and prognostication.

Organizational resilience in healthcare: a review and descriptive narrative synthesis of approaches to resilience measurement and assessment in empirical studies.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic has had a profound impact on organization and delivery of care. The challenges faced by healthcare organizations in dealing with the pandemic have intensified interest in the concept of resilience. While effort has gone into conceptualising resilience, there has been relatively little work on how to evaluate organizational resilience. This paper reports on an extensive review of approaches to resilience measurement and assessment in empirical healthcare studies, and examines their usefulness for researchers, policymakers and healthcare managers. METHODS: Various databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL (EBSCO host), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley), CDSR, Science Citation Index, and Social Science Citation Index) were searched from January 2000 to September 2021. We included quantitative, qualitative and modelling studies that focused on measuring or qualitatively assessing organizational resilience in a healthcare context. All studies were screened based on titles, abstracts and full text. For each approach, information on the format of measurement or assessment, method of data collection and analysis, and other relevant information were extracted. We classified the approaches to organizational resilience into five thematic areas of contrast: (1) type of shock; (2) stage of resilience; (3) included characteristics or indicators; (4) nature of output; and (5) purpose. The approaches were summarised narratively within these thematic areas. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. We identified a lack of consensus on how to evaluate organizational resilience in healthcare, what should be measured or assessed and when, and using what resilience characteristic and indicators. The measurement and assessment approaches varied in scope, format, content and purpose. Approaches varied in terms of whether they were prospective (resilience pre-shock) or retrospective (during or post-shock), and the extent to which they addressed a pre-defined and shock-specific set of characteristics and indicators. CONCLUSION: A range of approaches with differing characteristics and indicators has been developed to evaluate organizational resilience in healthcare, and may be of value to researchers, policymakers and healthcare managers. The choice of an approach to use in practice should be determined by the type of shock, the purpose of the evaluation, the intended use of results, and the availability of data and resources.

Geographic variation in point of care ultrasound provision: results from a national audit.

BACKGROUND: There is an emerging consensus that point-of-care ultrasound is an essential skill in acute care. This is reflected in recent changes to the Acute Internal Medicine curriculum in the UK. The need to develop and maintain specific ultrasound competencies is now a mandatory component of training. There is a degree of uncertainty as to how existing training infrastructure can best accommodate these changes. METHODS: Data were obtained from the latest annual Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit 2021. All Acute Medical Units in the UK are eligible to participate. Data pertaining to the number of ultrasound machines and number of clinicians that regularly use point of care ultrasound were collected. This was used to develop a series of maps demonstrating variation in provision at the national level. RESULTS: In total, 123 AMUs responded to the questions related to ultrasound prevalence and numbers of trained clinicians. Of these, 78.9% (97/123) reported having access to at least one ultrasound machine. There was at least one clinician that regularly used ultrasound in 81 responding hospitals (65.9%). There was significant geographic heterogeneity in the use of ultrasound and availability of accredited supervisors. At a regional level, ultrasound expertise is typically concentrated within a relatively small number of hospitals. CONCLUSION: Geographic variation in the use of ultrasound and availability of registered supervisors represents a significant challenge to ultrasound training provision at the national level. Targeted interventions in areas with less developed training infrastructure, such as regional training hubs may be required to ensure more equitable access to training opportunities.

National Early Warning Scores Following Emergency Hospital Transfer: Implications for Care Home Residents.

OBJECTIVE: Care home residents have high rates of hospital admission. The UK National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) standardizes the secondary care response to acute illness. However, the ability of NEWS2 to predict adverse health outcomes specifically for care home residents is unknown. This study explored the relationship between NEWS2 on admission to hospital and resident outcome 7 days later. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data on UK care home residents admitted to 160 hospitals in two 24-hour periods (2019 and 2020). METHOD: Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and multinomial regression were used to explore the association between low (score ≤2), intermediate (3-4), high (5-6), and critically high (≥7) NEWS2 on admission and each of the following: discharge on day of admission, admission and discharge within 7 days, prolonged hospital admission (>7 days), and death. RESULTS: From 665 resident admissions across 160 hospital sites, NEWS2 was low for 54%, intermediate for 18%, high for 13%, and critically high for 16%. The 7-day outcome was 10% same-day discharge, 47% admitted and subsequently discharged, 34% remained inpatients, and 8% died. There is a significant association between NEWS2 and these outcomes (P < .001). Compared with those with low NEWS2, residents with high and critically high NEWS2 had 3.6 and 9.5 times increased risk of prolonged hospitalization [relative risk ratio (RRR) 3.56; 95% CI 1.02-12.37; RRR 9.47; CI 2.20-40.67], respectively. The risk of death was approximately 14 times higher for residents with high NEWS2 (RRR 13.62; CI 3.17-58.49) and 54 times higher (RRR 53.50; CI 11.03-259.54) for critically high NEWS2. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Higher NEWS2 measurements on admission are associated with an increased risk of hospitalization up to 7 days duration, prolonged admission, and mortality for care home residents. NEWS2 may have a role as an adjunct to acute care decision making for hospitalized residents.

Practitioners' views on community implementation of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the UK: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Implementing Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in community practice could help to decide upon and prioritise initial treatment, procedures and appropriate specialist referral or conveyance to hospital. A recent literature review suggests that image quality, portability and cost of ultrasound devices are all improving with widening indications for community POCUS, but evidence about community POCUS use is needed in the UK. We aimed to explore views of clinical practitioners, actively using ultrasound, on their experiences of using POCUS and potential facilitators and barriers to its wider implementation in community settings in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study with practitioners from community and secondary care settings actively using POCUS in practice. A convenience sample of eligible participants from different clinical specialties and settings was recruited using social media adverts, through websites of relevant research groups and snowball sampling. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted online using Microsoft Teams. These were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a Framework approach supported by NVivo 12. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 practitioners aged between 40 and 62 years from different professional backgrounds, including paramedics, emergency physicians, general practitioners, and allied health professionals. Participants identified key considerations and facilitators for wider implementation of POCUS in community settings in the UK: resource requirements for deployment and support of working devices; sufficient time and a skilled workforce; attention to training, education and support needs; ensuring proper governance, guidelines and quality assurance; workforce considerations; enabling ease of use in assisting decision making with consideration of unintended consequences; and more robust evidence to support perceptions of improved patient outcomes and experience. CONCLUSIONS: POCUS could be useful for improving patient journey and health outcomes in community care, but this requires further research to evaluate outcomes. The facilitators identified could help make community POCUS a reality.

Hospital at home: A systematic review of how medication management is conceptualised, described and implemented in practice-A study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital at Home (H@H) is a method of healthcare delivery, where hospital level interventions are conducted in the patient's usual place of residence, offering an alternative to hospital admission. This often includes the ability to perform point of care diagnostics and treat conditions using a range of treatments traditionally associated with hospital admission, including intravenous medicines and oxygen. H@H services have been established worldwide but there is a wide variation in definition and delivery models and currently no documented evidence supporting the delivery of medicines and medicines management within the H@H model. Therefore, this study aims to 1) describe how medication management in H@H is conceptulised, 2) describe and identify key components of medication management in H@H and 3) describe and identify variability in the implementation of medication management services within H@H models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search a range of databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL), publicly accessible documents and expert recommendations. Studies, reports and policy documents published between 1st January 2000 and 31st January 2022 will be included. Two independent reviewers will 1) screen and select studies based on a priori inclusion/exclusion, 2) conduct quality assessment using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool on included studies and 3) extract data. Inductive thematic analysis (objectives 1 and 2), the SEIPS 2.0 model (objective 2) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (objective 3) will be used to synthesise data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will use secondary data sources from published documents, and as such research ethical approval was not required. We will disseminate the findings of this study in a peer-reviewed journal and national/international conference(s). TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022300691. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022300691.

Rural versus metropolitan comparison of processes of care in the community-based management of TIA and minor stroke in Australia (an analysis from the INSIST study).

OBJECTIVES: To compare processes of care and clinical outcomes of community-based management of TIAs and minor strokes (TIAMS) between rural and metropolitan Australia. DESIGN: Inception cohort study between 2012 and 2016 with 12-month follow-up after index event (sub-study of INSIST). SETTING: Hunter and Manning valley regions of New South Wales, within the referral territory of the John Hunter Hospital Acute Neurovascular Clinic (JHHANC). PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients of 16 participating general practices, presenting with possible TIAMS to either primary or secondary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Processes of care (referrals, key management processes, time-based metrics) and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of 613 participants with possible TIAMS who completed the baseline interview, 298 were adjudicated as having TIAMS (119 from rural, 179 from metropolitan). Mean age was 72.3 years (SD, 10.7) and 127 (43%) were women. Rural participants were more likely to be managed solely by a general practitioner (GP) than metropolitan participants (34% v 20%) and less likely to be referred to a JHHANC specialist (13% v 38%) or have brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [24% v 51%]. Those rural participants who were referred, also waited longer (both p < 0.001). Recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction and death at 12 months were not significantly different between rural and metropolitan participants. CONCLUSIONS: Although TIAMS prognosis in rural settings where solely GP care is common is very good, the processes of care in such areas are inferior to metropolitan. This suggests there is further scope to support rural GPs to optimise care of TIAMS patients.

A multicentre observational study of the prevalence, management, and outcomes of subsegmental pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) has increased with improvements in imaging technology. There is clinical equipoise for SSPE treatment, with conflicting evidence of improved mortality or reduced venous thromboembolism recurrence with anticoagulation. SSPE studies have significant heterogeneity and often lack adequately matched disease comparator groups. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, management, and outcomes of SSPE and compare them to patients with main, lobar, segmental, and no pulmonary embolism (PE). PATIENTS/METHODS: All adult patients undergoing CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) between 2013 and 2019, at 3 UK hospitals were included in the study. CTPA reports were text mined for language relating to PE, and then further manually screened for the presence and anatomical location of PE. Patient groups were propensity matched by age, sex, and year of CTPA prior to analysis. 3-month outcomes of major bleeding, VTE recurrence, and death were recorded. RESULTS: 79 (3.8%) SSPEs were identified from 2,055 diagnoses of PE, and 14,300 CTPA reports. 44 (56%) of SSPEs were single artery emboli, 25 (32%) were multiple unilateral emboli, and 10 (13%) were multiple bilateral emboli. Mortality, VTE recurrence and major bleeding were similar at 3 months across all groups. 87.3% of SSPE imaging reports had an additional radiological diagnosis, with pleural effusion (30%), consolidation (19%), and cardiomegaly (19%) being the most common. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of SSPE was 3.8% of all PEs and there were a substantial number of additional radiological findings in the SSPE group that may have accounted for their symptoms.

The impact of frailty and geriatric syndromes on metrics of acute care performance: results of a national day of care survey.

Background: Frailty is associated with a range of adverse clinical outcomes in the acute hospital setting. We sought to determine whether frailty and related factors affected clinical processes such as time to assessment during emergency hospital admission within the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. Methods: The Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit (SAMBA) is an annual cross-sectional day of care survey. SAMBA 2022 was conducted on Thursday 23rd June 2022. We assessed whether the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and presence of a geriatric syndrome affected performance against nationally recognised clinical quality indicators based on time to initial assessment and time to consultant review. CFS was graded into robust (CFS1-3), mild (CFS 4-5), moderate (CFS 6), severe (CFS7-8) and terminal illness (CFS 9). Plausible values were created for missing variables using multi-level multiple imputation. The association was described using mixed effect generalised linear models adjusting for initial National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and time of arrival. Findings: A total of 152 hospitals provided patient level data relating to 7248 emergency medical admissions. Patients with mild, moderate and severe frailty were less likely to be assessed within 4 h of arrival (adjusted OR, mild 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.96, moderate 0.67 95% CI 0.53-0.84, severe, 0.75 95% CI 0.58-0.96, terminally ill 0.59 95% CI 0.23-1.43) and less likely to be achieve the clinical quality indicator for consultant review (adjusted OR, mild 0.69 95% CI 0.58-0.83, moderate 0.55 95% CI 0.44-0.70, severe 0.54 95% CI 0.41-0.69, terminally ill 0.76 95% CI 0.42-1.5). Patients with geriatric syndromes were also less likely to be assessed within 4 h of arrival (adjusted OR 0.66 95% CI 0.56-0.76) or by a consultant within the recommended time frame (adjusted OR 0.45 95% CI 0.39-0.51). The difference was partially explained by differential use of SDEC pathways. Sub-group analysis of 5148 patients assessed outside of SDEC areas demonstrated patients with geriatric syndromes (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60-0.83), but not frailty defined by CFS were less likely to be assessed within 4 h of arrival. Moderate and severe frailty and the presence of a geriatric syndrome were associated with a decreased likelihood of achieving the consultant review standard (moderate, adjusted OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.94, severe adjusted OR 0.75 95% CI 0.58-0.96, geriatric syndrome adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.69). Interpretation: Frailty is associated with delayed clinical assessment. This association may suggest a systemic issue with clinical prioritisation, with important implications for acute care policy. Funding: The database for SAMBA is funded by the Society for Acute Medicine.