Search

Objective: To describe patterns of use of the available Government-subsidised mental health services among people living in Australian residential aged care facilities. Methods: A retrospective population-based trend analysis was conducted, including all non-Indigenous people living in an Australian facility between 2012 and 2017. Adjusted incidence proportions and trends were estimated for four groups of mental health services. Results: The use of Medicare-subsidised mental health services was very low overall. The proportion of residents who accessed primary care mental health services increased from 1.3% in 2012/2013 to 2.4% in 2016/2017, while psychiatry service use increased from 1.9 to 2.3%. Claims for clinical psychology increased from 0.18 to 0.26%, and claims for a registered psychologist, occupational therapist or social worker rose from 0.45 to 1.2%. People with dementia were less likely than people without dementia to access all services aside from psychiatry services. Conclusions: Less than 3% of residents accessed funding subsidies for mental health services and people with dementia experienced pronounced barriers to service access. Mental health care is a pillar of the publicly-funded health system in Australia, and low use of these services among aged care residents indicates a need for organisational and policy changes to improve access. What is known about the topic? People living in residential aged care facilities report very high rates of mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety. What does this paper add? We demonstrate very low use (<3%) of Government-funded mental health services among people living in residential aged care facilities in Australia, with only small increases in use over time. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners should routinely assess the mental health needs of people living in residential aged care and refer for in-reach mental health services where needed, noting that facility staff are usually not trained for this role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study aimed to further our understanding of second opinions among medical oncology patients by examining the proportion of patients who sought a second opinion about their cancer treatment, and why. Methods: The study was conducted between 2013 and 2015 in three medical oncology clinics located in public hospitals in Australia: in metropolitan New South Wales, metropolitan Queensland, and in Tasmania. Those patients who provide written informed consent were asked to complete a brief paper and pencil survey in the clinic containing questions on sociodemographic, disease and treatment characteristics. Approximately 1 month later, participants were mailed a second paper and pencil survey which contained questions about whether they had sought a second opinion and their motivation for doing so. Non-responders were followed up by letter at 3 and 6 weeks. Results: Of 823 patients screened for eligibility, 698 eligible patients, 612 provided consent. Of those who consented, 355 completed both the initial survey and the second survey and were included in the analyses. Of the 57 patients who sought a second opinion, the most frequent reasons given for doing so were the need for reassurance (49.1%) and the need to consider the range of treatment options (41.8%). Of the 297 (83.6%) participants who did not seek a second opinion, the main reason was confidence in the first doctor (88.7%). Only 3.1% patients did not know that they could ask for a second opinion. Occasionally the doctor will initiate the referral for a second opinion. Conclusions: Our study suggests that a minority of cancer patients seek a second opinion at some phase during their care. Most did so for reassurance or to ensure that they had covered all of the treatment options and not because of discomfort or distrust of their treating doctor. Few patients reported a lack of awareness of second opinions. This suggests that second opinions form part of a patient-centred approach to information provision about care options. Whether the second opinion improves the quality of care or indeed outcomes has been difficult to demonstrate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]