Integration, effectiveness and costs of different models of primary health care provision for people who are homeless: an evaluation study.

Background: There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services. Objectives: This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants' use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated. Design and setting: The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model. Participants: People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as 'case study participants'; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders. Results: The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services. Limitations: There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model. Conclusions: Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, 'drop-in' services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Health problems are common among single people who are homeless, but there is little evidence of the best ways to deliver primary health care to them. This study evaluated four types of services (models) that are in existence: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres); (2) Mobile Teams that provide health care in hostels and day centres; (3) Specialist GPs that have some services exclusively for patients who are homeless; and (4) Usual Care GPs providing health care to all patients, with no special services for people who are homeless. The study concentrated on single people (not homeless families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation and on the streets. Overall, 363 patients at these practices who had been homeless in the previous 12 months participated, and information was collected from them over a 12-month period. We examined the extent to which screening for different health conditions was undertaken, and to which treatment and follow-up care were provided for participants with chronic respiratory problems, depression, alcohol problems and drug problems. Information was gathered from their medical records about use of health and social care services over 12 months. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were more favourable. They had staff working specifically with patients who were homeless; provided flexible 'drop-in' services instead of requiring patients to book appointments; and worked closely with mental health, alcohol and drug services, and with hostels, day centres and street outreach teams. Participants were also more satisfied with the health care they received from the specialist models, and were more likely to say that they had confidence and trust in doctors and nurses at these sites. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services.

Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket).

BACKGROUND: Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively with or without halitosis, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2012.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local interventions used for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction. SEARCH METHODS: An Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket postextraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane Reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We followed Cochrane statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data, it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio (OR) instead. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 trials with 6771 participants; 39 trials (with 6219 participants) investigated prevention of dry socket and 10 studies (with 552 participants) looked at the treatment of dry socket. 16 studies were at high risk of bias, 30 studies at unclear risk of bias, and 3 studies at low risk of bias. Chlorhexidine in the prevention of dry socket When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and 24 hours after extraction(s) substantially reduced the risk of developing dry socket with an OR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; P < 0.00001; 6 trials, 1547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varies from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) with chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket was 162 (95% CI 155 to 240), 33 (95% CI 27 to 49), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 10) for control prevalence of dry socket 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively.  Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel intrasocket after extractions reduced the odds of developing a dry socket by 58% with an OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; P = 0.0008; 7 trials, 753 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNT with chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) to prevent one patient developing dry socket was 180 (95% CI 137 to 347), 37 (95% CI 28 to 72), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 15) for control prevalence of dry socket of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to chlorhexidine rinse (0.12%), placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) intrasocket after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of dry socket (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; P = 0.22; 2 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses (alteration in taste, staining of teeth, stomatitis) though most studies were not designed explicitly to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket. Platelet rich plasma in the prevention of dry socket  Compared to placebo, placing platelet rich plasma after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of having a dry socket (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33; P = 0.17; 2 studies, 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  A further 21 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Zinc oxide eugenol versus Alvogyl in the treatment of dry socket Two studies, with 80 participants, showed that Alvogyl (old formulation) is more effective than zinc oxide eugenol at reducing pain at day 7 (mean difference (MD) -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) A further nine interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in single studies, providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tooth extractions are generally undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but five studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is moderate-certainty evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, probably results in a reduction in dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 21 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was limited evidence of very low certainty that Alvogyl (old formulation) may reduce pain at day 7 in patients with dry socket when compared to zinc oxide eugenol.