Search

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global pandemic, however, estimating its burden is a complex process. As a result, many countries rely on global estimates to infer burden within their own setting. With a growing number of recent publications quantifying AMR burden in Australia, and an expansion of surveillance programs, enumerating AMR mortality for Australia is feasible. We aimed to leverage existing published data to assess methodological factors contributing to the considerable variation in AMR-related mortality and provide two reliable estimates of AMR mortality in Australia. This is a necessary step towards generating meaningful measures of AMR burden in Australia. What is known about the topic? Antimicrobial resistance is a significant global health threat, but estimating the burden of disease is complicated by data challenges. What does this paper add? This paper highlights progress in estimating the number of people dying from antimicrobial resistance in Australia and highlights the importance of rigorous antimicrobial resistance mortality estimates in Australia to assess burden of disease. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners should use only rigorous estimates of burden of disease to inform actions on reducing the threat of antimicrobial resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To scope how the Australian Bureau of Statistics Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) has been applied to measure socio-economic status (SES) in peer-reviewed cardiovascular disease (CVD) research. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review methodology was used. Results: The search retrieved 2788 unique citations, and 49 studies were included. Studies were heterogeneous in their approach to analysis using SEIFA. Not all studies provided information as to what version was used and how SEIFA was applied in analysis. Spatial unit of analysis varied between studies, with participant postcode most frequently applied. Study quality varied. Conclusions: The use of SEIFA in Australian CVD peer-reviewed research is widespread, with variations in the application of SEIFA to measure SES as an exposure. There is a need to improve the reporting of how SEIFA is applied in the methods sections of research papers for greater transparency and to ensure accurate interpretation of CVD research. What is known about the topic? A socio-economic status (SES) gradient is well established for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Research has generally applied two approaches to classifying SES: at an individual level using income, education or occupation data, and at an area level using a range of existing socio-economic information, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). What does this paper add? This review examined how SEIFA has been applied to measure SES in Australian peer-reviewed CVD research and to identify any variations in research practice. What are the implications for practitioners? It is recommended that researchers provide a clear explanation in the methods section of research papers as to which SEIFA version and index was applied, how it was applied, at what spatial unit, and whether the spatial unit was an ABS or non-ABS unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Internationally, hip or knee arthroplasty (TJA) with a 1-day hospital length of stay (LOS) is common and demonstrates improved patient and health service outcomes. This study aimed to develop and pilot an enhanced recovery program (ERP) for patients undergoing TJA to achieve a next-day discharge in an Australian public hospital setting. Methods: A project lead and six perioperative clinical craft group leads developed an ERP protocol based on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles. Strict patient eligibility criteria were developed. Quality improvement methodology was used to implement the ERP. A patient navigator was put in place as a single contact point for patients. Results: A total of 825 patients were screened for the ERP and 47 patients completed the protocol. The mean ± standard deviation (s.d.) of the LOS was 34.7 (± 7.2) h with 41 patients (87%) achieving next-day discharge, the remaining six (13%) discharged on Day 2. Compliance with ERAS was high (96%) with mobilisation within 12 h occurring on 87% of occasions. There were no adverse events. Patient experience was positive. Conclusion: Next-day discharge was achieved with a selected cohort of patients with no adverse events and positive patient experience, using a multidisciplinary approach and an improvement framework. Broadening inclusion criteria will make ERP available to more patients. What is known about the topic? Next-day discharge following hip or knee arthroplasty in Australian public hospital settings is uncommon and little has been published reflecting enhanced recovery principles in this local context. What does this paper add? This paper describes the development and piloting of an enhanced recovery program using a novel approach to achieve next-day discharge following hip and knee replacement. What are the implications for practitioners? Other health services may leverage this approach to design and implement an enhanced recovery program to reduce hospital length of stay and improve patient and health service outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aimed to determine which method to triage intensive care patients using chronic comorbidity in a pandemic was perceived to be the fairest by the general public. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the public perceived it fair to provide preferential intensive care triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers. Methods: A postal survey of 2000 registered voters randomly selected from the Australian Electoral Commission electoral roll was performed. The main outcome measures were respondents' fairness rating of four hypothetical intensive care triage methods that assess comorbidity (chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty); and respondents' fairness rating of providing preferential triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers. Results: The proportion of respondents who considered it fair to triage based on chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty, was 52.1, 56.1, 65.0 and 62.4%, respectively. The proportion of respondents who considered it unfair to triage based on these four comorbidities was 31.9, 30.9, 23.8 and 23.2%, respectively. More respondents considered it unfair to preferentially triage vulnerable or disadvantaged people, than fair (41.8% versus 21.2%). More respondents considered it fair to preferentially triage frontline healthcare workers, than unfair (44.2% versus 30.0%). Conclusion: Respondents in this survey perceived all four hypothetical methods to triage intensive care patients based on comorbidity in a pandemic disaster to be fair. However, the sizable minority who consider this to be unfair indicates that these triage methods could encounter significant opposition if they were to be enacted in health policy. What is known about the topic? Triage systems can be used to prioritise the order in which patients are treated in a pandemic, but the views of the general public on using chronic comorbidity as intensive care unit (ICU) triage criteria are unknown. What does this paper add? This Australian survey, conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, demonstrated that the majority of respondents perceived ICU triage methods based on comorbidity to be fair, but significant ethical issues exist. What are the implications for practitioners? It may be possible to develop an ICU triage protocol for future pandemics in Australia, but further research is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]