Search

Background: Quality of care in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has received much attention internationally; however, the available surveys focus on health professionals rather than patients. Aim(s): To assess the experiences of healthcare for people living with IBD against established Australian IBD Standards. Method(s): An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with Australians >=16 years old recruited via Crohn's & Colitis Australia membership, public and private clinics and the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Participants completed a questionnaire incorporating items addressing the Australian IBD Standards 2016, the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire, IBD Control Survey and the Manitoba Index. Result(s): Complete data were provided by 731 respondents (71.5% female, median age 46 years, ranging from 16 to 84 years). While the majority (74.8%) were satisfied with their IBD healthcare, the care reported did not meet the Australian IBD Standards. Overall, 32.4% had access to IBD nurses, 30.9% to a dietician and 12% to a psychologist in their treating team. Participants managed by public IBD clinics were most likely to have access to an IBD nurse (83.7%), helpline (80.7%) and research trials (37%). One third of respondents reported waiting >14 days to see a specialist when their IBD flared. Participants received enough information, mostly from medical specialists (88.8%) and IBD nurses (79.4%). However, 51% wanted to be more involved in their healthcare. Conclusion(s): These data show discordance between expectations of patients and national standards with current levels of service provision, which fail to deliver equitable and comprehensive IBD care.Copyright © 2019 Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Background and Aim: Data on patient needs and access to psychological services in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are scarce. This study aimed to describe the levels of distress and the needs, attitudes, and access to psychological services for people within Australia against established Australian IBD Standards. Method(s): An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with Australians >=16 years old recruited via Crohn's & Colitis Australia membership, public and private clinics, and the Royal Flying Doctor Service. K10 was used to measure psychological distress. The Chi-square test was used to compare those with and without distress on key variables. Result(s): Overall, 731 respondents provided complete data (71.5% female, mean age 46.5 years). Overall, 50% of respondents reported distress; only 15.2% were currently seeing a mental health practitioner; only 16.1% were asked about their mental health by their IBD specialist or IBD nurse; and only 12.2% reported access to a mental health practitioner as part of their IBD service. Those with psychological distress were significantly less satisfied with their IBD care; more commonly hospitalized; had an active disease, fistula or perianal disease, pain, or fatigue; and were receiving steroids, opioids, or antidepressants (all P < 0.05). As many as 68.2% of those with severe distress were not seeing a mental health practitioner. Conclusion(s): The integrated biopsychosocial model of health care, with regular mental health screening and good access to mental health professionals, is requested by people living with IBD to improve their outcomes.Copyright © 2019 The Authors. JGH Open: An open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Data on patient needs and access to psychological services in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are scarce. This study aimed to describe the levels of distress and the needs, attitudes, and access to psychological services for people within Australia against established Australian IBD Standards. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with Australians ≥16 years old recruited via Crohn's & Colitis Australia membership, public and private clinics, and the Royal Flying Doctor Service. K10 was used to measure psychological distress. The Chi-square test was used to compare those with and without distress on key variables. RESULTS: Overall, 731 respondents provided complete data (71.5% female, mean age 46.5 years). Overall, 50% of respondents reported distress; only 15.2% were currently seeing a mental health practitioner; only 16.1% were asked about their mental health by their IBD specialist or IBD nurse; and only 12.2% reported access to a mental health practitioner as part of their IBD service. Those with psychological distress were significantly less satisfied with their IBD care; more commonly hospitalized; had an active disease, fistula or perianal disease, pain, or fatigue; and were receiving steroids, opioids, or antidepressants (all P < 0.05). As many as 68.2% of those with severe distress were not seeing a mental health practitioner. CONCLUSIONS: The integrated biopsychosocial model of health care, with regular mental health screening and good access to mental health professionals, is requested by people living with IBD to improve their outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Quality of care in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has received much attention internationally; however, the available surveys focus on health professionals rather than patients. AIMS: To assess the experiences of healthcare for people living with IBD against established Australian IBD Standards. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted with Australians ≥16 years old recruited via Crohn's & Colitis Australia membership, public and private clinics and the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Participants completed a questionnaire incorporating items addressing the Australian IBD Standards 2016, the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire, IBD Control Survey and the Manitoba Index. RESULTS: Complete data were provided by 731 respondents (71.5% female, median age 46 years, ranging from 16 to 84 years). While the majority (74.8%) were satisfied with their IBD healthcare, the care reported did not meet the Australian IBD Standards. Overall, 32.4% had access to IBD nurses, 30.9% to a dietician and 12% to a psychologist in their treating team. Participants managed by public IBD clinics were most likely to have access to an IBD nurse (83.7%), helpline (80.7%) and research trials (37%). One third of respondents reported waiting >14 days to see a specialist when their IBD flared. Participants received enough information, mostly from medical specialists (88.8%) and IBD nurses (79.4%). However, 51% wanted to be more involved in their healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: These data show discordance between expectations of patients and national standards with current levels of service provision, which fail to deliver equitable and comprehensive IBD care.

Background: Australia has among the highest prevalence of Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis in the world. Management of the chronic gastrointestinal disorders results in significant societal costs and the standard of care is inconsistent across Australia. Aim(s): To audit the quality of care received by patients admitted for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) across Australia against national IBD standards. Method(s): A retrospective cross-sectional survey and clinical audit was undertaken assessing organisational resources, clinical processes and outcome measures. This study was conducted in Australian hospitals that care for inpatients with Crohn disease or ulcerative colitis. The main outcome measures were adherence to national IBD standards and comparison of quality of care between hospitals with and without multidisciplinary IBD services. Result(s): A total of 71 hospitals completed the organisational survey. Only one hospital had a complete multidisciplinary IBD service and 17 had a partial IBD service (IBD nurse, helpline and clinical lead). A total of 1440 inpatient records was reviewed from 52 hospitals (mean age 37 years; 51% female, 53% Crohn disease), approximately 26% of IBD inpatient episodes over a 12-month period in Australia. These patients were chronically unwell with high rates of anaemia (30%) and frequent readmissions (40% within 2 years). In general, care was inconsistent, and documentation was poor. Hospitals with a partial IBD service performed better in many processes and outcome measures: for example, 22% reduction in admissions through emergency departments and greater adherence to standards for safety monitoring of biological (89% vs 59%) and immunosuppressive drugs (79% vs 55%) in those hospitals than those without. Conclusion(s): Patients admitted to hospital suffering from IBD are young, chronically unwell and are subject to substantial variations in clinical documentation and quality of care. Only one hospital met accepted standards

BACKGROUND: Australia has among the highest prevalence of Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis in the world. Management of the chronic gastrointestinal disorders results in significant societal costs and the standard of care is inconsistent across Australia. AIM: To audit the quality of care received by patients admitted for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) across Australia against national IBD standards. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional survey and clinical audit was undertaken assessing organisational resources, clinical processes and outcome measures. This study was conducted in Australian hospitals that care for inpatients with Crohn disease or ulcerative colitis. The main outcome measures were adherence to national IBD standards and comparison of quality of care between hospitals with and without multidisciplinary IBD services. RESULTS: A total of 71 hospitals completed the organisational survey. Only one hospital had a complete multidisciplinary IBD service and 17 had a partial IBD service (IBD nurse, helpline and clinical lead). A total of 1440 inpatient records was reviewed from 52 hospitals (mean age 37 years; 51% female, 53% Crohn disease), approximately 26% of IBD inpatient episodes over a 12-month period in Australia. These patients were chronically unwell with high rates of anaemia (30%) and frequent readmissions (40% within 2 years). In general, care was inconsistent, and documentation was poor. Hospitals with a partial IBD service performed better in many processes and outcome measures: for example, 22% reduction in admissions through emergency departments and greater adherence to standards for safety monitoring of biological (89% vs 59%) and immunosuppressive drugs (79% vs 55%) in those hospitals than those without. CONCLUSION: Patients admitted to hospital suffering from IBD are young, chronically unwell and are subject to substantial variations in clinical documentation and quality of care. Only one hospital met accepted standards for multid

Background: Current models of care for ulcerative colitis (UC) across healthcare systems are inconsistent with a paucity of existing guidelines or supportive tools for outpatient management. Aim(s): This study aimed to produce and evaluate evidence-based outpatient management tools for UC to guide primary care practitioners and patients in clinical decision-making. Method(s): Three tools were developed after identifying current gaps in the provision of healthcare services for patients with UC at a Clinical Insights Meeting in 2013. Draft designs were further refined through consultation and consolidation of feedback by the steering committee. Final drafts were developed following feasibility testing in three key stakeholder groups (gastroenterologists, general practitioners and patients) by questionnaire. The tools were officially launched into mainstream use in Australia in 2014. Result(s): Three quarters of all respondents liked the layout and content of each tool. Minimal safety concerns were aired and those, along with pieces of information that were felt to be omitted, that were reviewed by the steering committee and incorporated into the final documents. The majority (over 80%) of respondents felt that the tools would be useful and would improve outpatient management of UC. Conclusion(s): Evidence-based outpatient clinical management tools for UC can be developed. The concept and end-product have been well received by all stakeholder groups. These tools should support non-specialist clinicians to optimise UC management and empower patients by facilitating them to safely self-manage and identify when medical support is needed.Copyright © 2015 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

Introduction: UC is a chronic disease usually diagnosed at a young age. Optimal management with the avoidance of accumulated and often preventable disease or treatment complications is essential to minimise the impact on long-term prognosis and morbidity. Despite good availability of evidence based treatment guidelines for UC, there remain a number of management challenges faced by health practitioners caring for this patient group. 1. Non adherence is common amongst IBD sufferers and is the main reason for disease flares. 2. Access to specialist IBD clinics is limited outside of Metropolitan areas and as such many patients with UC are managed by local GP's or Physicians who may have limited knowledge on assessment and treatment of UC. 3. Despite good evidence as to the efficacy of oral and rectal 5ASA's in the treatment of mild to moderate UC, the use of steroids is high. There is also poor differentiation between symptoms of active UC and symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome leading to inappropriate treatment escalation in patients with inactive UC. 4. IBD patients' desire to be actively involved in the decision-making process, however their knowledge and understanding of UC and its treatments is limited and although there is international evidence supporting good outcomes from guided patient self management, this is a field that has not been readily utilised in Australia Methods: An extensive review of the literature was undertaken and a number of teleconferences between our group were held. Agreement was reached and pilot tools to guide patients in self management and GPs in evidence based assessment and management of UC were drafted. Our group then organised a multi-disciplinary meeting to gain insights from GPs, patients, nurses, physicians as well as Gastroenterologists and trainees, into the need for and content of formalised tools to facilitate more effective assessment and management of patients with UC, outside of specialist IBD clinics. The aim was to re