Search

Traditional emergency departments (EDs) are overcrowded and sometimes not suitable for older adults with complex needs. Specialised geriatric urgent care pathways for selected patients can alleviate ED demand and improve patient experience. To address urgent care needs for older adults in Southern Adelaide, the Complex And RestorativE (CARE) service was established. CARE offers alternative, geriatrician‐led treatment pathways consisting of a ward‐based treatment centre and an in‐home visiting team called Eyes on Scene (EoS). Both pathways offer medical, nursing and allied health treatment. Routinely collected clinical data were analysed to explore the reach of the service and the incidence and nature of adverse events. Between September 2021 and March 2023, the CARE service attended to 5324 older adults requiring urgent care. A significant proportion of patients were discharged to or remained in their regular place of residence, with few requiring inpatient admissions or referrals to other facilities. A total of 7% of patients required transfer to ED and adverse events were rare. The CARE service demonstrates a feasible and safe alternative model of urgent care for older Australians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of a 12‐week Exercise Physiology (EP) program for people living in a residential aged care facility. Methods: A within‐study pre‐ and postintervention design to calculate incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios per quality‐adjusted life years gained. A health service provider perspective was used. Results: Fifty‐nine participants enrolled in a 12‐week program. The program cost was A$514.30 per resident. At a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of A$64 000, the likelihood of being cost‐effective of the program is approximately 60%, due to a small increase in participants' quality of life, as reported by care staff. The model showed great variance, depending on who rated the participants' quality of life outcomes. Conclusion: It is uncertain that a 12‐week EP program is cost‐effective based on the evidence of the current trial. However, it appears that a low‐cost program can produce small improvements for residents in care facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]