Search

Background: Non-traumatic lower limb amputation rates are rising worldwide, resulting in increased hospitalisations and use of rehabilitation services. This study aimed to identify key comorbidities associated with prolonged length of stay or decreased functional gain for episodes receiving inpatient rehabilitation following non-traumatic lower limb amputation. Methods: Prospectively collected data submitted to the Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre were analysed. The cohort comprised episodes for patients (aged ≥18 years) discharged from inpatient rehabilitation between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2018 following a non-traumatic lower limb amputation. Results: The cohort included 5074 episodes with an average age of 66.3 years and the majority being male (71.7%). Comorbidities affecting the ability to participate in rehabilitation were reported for 65.4% of episodes, most commonly diabetes mellitus (50.3%), cardiac disease (33.5%), and respiratory disease (10.1%). These comorbidities were associated with a prolonged length of stay and reduced functional improvement. Conclusion: This study showed comorbidities contribute to prolonged length of stay and poorer functional outcomes among those undergoing inpatient rehabilitation following non-traumatic lower limb amputation. Future research should focus on strategies to address these comorbidities to help improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. What is known about the topic? It is known that the presence of comorbidities contributes to lower limb amputation; however, the effect that comorbidities have on inpatient rehabilitation outcomes is not well reported. What does this paper add? This study identified five comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, respiratory disease, renal failure with dialysis, and mental health problems) associated with prolonged length of stay and decreased functional outcomes following inpatient rehabilitation for non-traumatic lower limb amputation. What are the implications for practitioners? Our findings suggest practitioners should focus on strategies to address these comorbidities to help improve functional outcomes, reduce length of stay, and reduce healthcare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal operations for clinical outcomes, safety and cost. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed of 213 elective colorectal operations (59 robotic, 154 laparoscopic), matched by surgeon and operation type. Results: No differences in age, body mass index, median American Society of Anesthesiologists score or presence of cancer were observed between the laparoscopic or robotic surgery groups. However, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery were more frequently male (P = 0.004) with earlier T stage tumours (P = 0.02) if cancer present. Procedures took longer in cases of robotic surgery (302 vs 130 min; P < 0.001), and patients in this group were more frequently admitted to intensive care units (P < 0.001). Overall length of stay was longer (7 vs 5 days; P = 0.03) and consumable cost was A$2728 higher per patient in the robotic surgery group. Conclusion: Robotic colorectal surgery appears to be safe compared with current laparoscopic techniques, albeit with longer procedure times and overall length of stay, more frequent intensive care admissions and higher consumables cost. What is known about the topic?: Robotic surgery is an emerging alternative to traditional laparoscopic approaches in colorectal surgery. International trials suggest the two techniques are equivalent in safety. What does this paper add?: This is an original cohort study examining clinical outcomes in Australian colorectal robotic surgery. The data suggest it may be safe, but this paper demonstrates key issues in the implementation and audit of novel surgical technologies in relatively low-volume centres. What are implications for practitioners?: In our study, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery at a single centre in Australia had equivalent measured clinical outcomes to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. However, practitioners may counsel patients that robotic procedures are typically longer and more expensive, with a longer overall hospital admission and a higher likelihood of intensive care admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aims of this study were to identify: (1) whether an after-hours emergency department (ED) collaborative care service using primary contact physiotherapists (PCPs) improves treatment times for musculoskeletal and simple orthopaedic presentations; and (2) differences in orthopaedic referral rates and analgesia prescription for patients managed by PCPs compared with secondary contact physiotherapists. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted of diagnosed, matched patients seen in a 4-day week after-hours ED primary contact physiotherapy service in a tertiary referral ED. Patients presenting with a musculoskeletal or simple orthopaedic diagnosis reviewed by a physiotherapist as either the primary or secondary physiotherapy contact between 1630 and 2030 hours from Saturday to Tuesday were included in the analysis. Outcome measures collected included ED length of stay, orthopaedic referrals in the ED, follow-up plan on discharge from the ED and analgesia prescriptions. Results: There were no adverse events, missed diagnoses or re-presentations for any patients managed by an ED PCP. Mean (± s.d.) treatment time for patients seen by an ED PCP was 130 ± 76 min, compared with 240 ± 115 min for those seen by a secondary contact physiotherapist (P < 0.001). There were significant differences between patients managed by PCP versus secondary contact physiotherapists, with decreases of 20.4% for referrals to orthopaedics in the ED, 21.2% for orthopaedic clinic referrals on discharge and 8.5% in analgesia prescriptions for patients managed by an ED PCP (P < 0.001). In addition to these reductions, there was a 17.5% increase in general practitioner referrals on discharge for patients managed by an ED PCP (P < 0.001). Conclusion: An after-hours ED physiotherapy service is a safe service that reduces ED treatment times, as well as analgesia prescriptions and orthopaedic referrals for patients managed by a PCP. What is known about the topic?: PCPs are capable of providing safe and effective care to patients in the ED who present with musculoskeletal complaints. Patients managed by physiotherapists as the primary contact require fewer X-rays and have reduced treatment times. What does this paper add?: Compared with previously published articles, this study demonstrates similar reductions in ED treatment times in an after-hours setting for patients managed by an ED PCP. However, this was achieved by physiotherapists who have less reported experience. Furthermore, this study found that management of patients by PCPs resulted in a reduction in the amount of analgesia prescribed and orthopaedic input required for these patients. What are the implications for practitioners?: PCPs can be trained to operate in the ED with minor or no prior ED experience while facilitating reductions in the amount of analgesia prescribed, orthopaedic referrals required (in ED and on discharge) and reducing treatment times for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The management of low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) patients through ambulatory programs has demonstrated comparative safety and effectiveness to in-patient strategies. However, there is limited evidence of benefits of changing practice, particularly on a national scale. The aim of this study was to estimate costs and benefits of the program over a 10-year time horizon. Methods: A comparative cost analysis from a health system perspective was performed, comparing costs and length of stay (LOS) of patients enrolled in an ambulatory program to a historical cohort who did not receive the program. Generalised linear models were used for analysis and bootstrapped to account for uncertainty. National data of identified FN admissions were used to inform future projections, with varying proportions of low-risk patients and eligibility for the ambulatory program. Results: The overall LOS for patients in ambulatory cohort was 1.9 days shorter (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–2.8 days), a 50% reduction in in-patient bed-days. Although patients in the ambulatory cohort incurred additional costs due to care received outside hospital (mean (± s.d.) A$828.03 ± 124.30), the mean total cost incurred remained substantially lower than that of the historical cohort (A$2979 lower; 95% CI A$772–5391). On a national scale, this could translate into A$62.7 million in costs averted and 41 347 bed-days saved over 10 years if the low-risk prediction rate and eligibility for ambulatory programs remained at currently observed rates. Conclusions: The wider implementation of a safe and effective ambulatory program to manage low-risk FN patients can result in significant return-on-investment for the healthcare system by eliminating avoidable costs due to unnecessary lengthy hospital admissions. What is known about the topic?: There is strong evidence demonstrating out-patient treatment of low-risk FN patients to be an effective and cost-effective strategy compared with continued in-patient hospitalisation. What does this paper add?: This study demonstrates the sustainability of the ambulatory program in ensuring cost benefits and in-patient beds through real-life implementation data. It also provides evidence of the substantial cost and bed-days potentially averted when the cost savings and difference in LOS are estimated on a national scale over a 10-year time horizon. What are the implications for practitioners?: The management of low-risk FN patients through ambulatory or out-patient programs is a safe and effective approach. There is strong evidence demonstrating the likely cost savings and considerable bed-days saved, which can be reallocated to meet other medical demands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate the implementation of a virtual ward as a COVID-19 hospital avoidance response strategy and identify opportunities for improvement and future applicability. Methods. A mixed-method observational study was conducted of a centralised virtual ward, which operated in a large metropolitan Australian health service from 23 March to 1 June 2020. Results. In total, 238 unique patients were admitted to the virtual ward, accounting for 264 individual admission episodes and 2451 virtual bed days. Twenty (7.6%) episodes resulted in transfer to hospital and 136 patients provided responses to feedback surveys and reported their experience as very good (61.7%, n = 87) or good (34.8%, n = 49). Implementation success was high, with the model widely accepted and adopted across the health service. The service delivery model was considered to be low-cost in comparison to inpatient hospital-based care. Conclusions. Overall, as a rapidly developed and implemented low-tech model of care, the virtual ward was found to provide an effective, accessible and low-cost solution to managing low-acuity COVID-19-positive patients in the community. This model should be considered in future pandemics as a hospital-avoidance response, with the ability to minimise patient-to-healthcare worker transmission, reduce personal protective equipment use and enhance patient adherence with isolation requirements. Targeted remote telemonitoring should be considered as a future modification to improve patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim was to examine predictors of duration of inpatient hospital stay in people with diabetes mellitus to assist implementation of strategies to reduce hospital stay. This audit prospectively studied patients with diabetes mellitus admitted to a medical unit of an Australian community public hospital. Other outcome measures included glucose treatment optimisation and access to GP and diabetes-specific healthcare professionals. Comparison was made to patients without diabetes mellitus who were admitted concomitantly. Diabetes patients represented 26% of admissions over a 2-month period. In total, 73% had seen a GP within the prior 6 months. Patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 79) had a median age of 69 years; 53% were male and median HbA1c was 65mmolmol-1 (8.1%). Diabetes mellitus was associated with a longer inpatient stay (P = 0.03), particularly among patients admitted with vascular disease. Age >65 years and seeing <3 members of the community-based diabetes mellitus multidisciplinary team (MDT) in the 2-years pre-admission were independently associated with a longer stay (P = 0.02). In total, 10% were referred to an endocrinologist on discharge. Involvement of more of the diabetes-specific MDT, with a skilled GP, in primary care is recommended as it may shorten inpatient hospital stay, improve glycaemia and reduce demand for limited specialist endocrinologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Adult febrile neutropenic oncology patients, at low risk of developing medical complications, may be effectively and safely managed in an ambulatory setting, provided they are appropriately selected and adequate supportive facilities and clinical services are available to monitor these patients and respond to any clinical deterioration. Methods. A cost analysis was modelled using decision tree analysis, published cost and effectiveness parameters for ambulatory care strategies and data from the State of Victoria's hospital morbidity dataset. Two-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation were performed to evaluate the uncertainty of costs and outcomes associated with ambulatory care. Results. The modelled cost analysis showed that cost savings for two ambulatory care strategies were ~30% compared to standard hospital care. The weighted average cost saving per episode of 'low-risk' febrile neutropenia using Strategy 1 (outpatient follow-up only) was 35% (range: 7-55%) and that for Strategy 2 (early discharge and outpatient follow-up) was 30% (range: 7-39%). Strategy 2 was more cost-effective than Strategy 1 and was deemed the more clinically favoured approach. Conclusion. This study outlines a cost structure for a safe and comprehensive ambulatory care program comprised of an early discharge pathway with outpatient follow-up, and promotes this as a cost effective approach to managing 'low-risk' febrile neutropenic patients. INSET: What is known about the topic?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]