Search

Background Hip fracture is a leading cause of disability and mortality among older people. During the COVID-19 pandemic, orthopaedic care pathways in the National Health Service in England were restructured to manage pressures on hospital capacity. We examined the indirect consequences of the pandemic for hospital mortality among older patients with hip fracture, admitted from care homes or the community. Methods Retrospective analysis of linked care home and hospital inpatient data for patients with hip fracture aged 65 years and over admitted to hospitals in England during the first year of the pandemic (1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021) or during the previous year. We performed survival analysis, adjusting for case mix and COVID-19 infection, and considered live discharge as a competing risk. We present cause-specific hazard ratios (HRCS) for the effect of admission year on hospital mortality risk. Results During the first year of the pandemic, there were 55 648 hip fracture admissions: a 5.2% decrease on the previous year. 9.5% of patients had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Hospital stays were substantially shorter (p<0.05), and there was a higher daily chance of discharge (HRCS 1.40, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.41). Overall hip fracture inpatient mortality increased (7.2% in 2020/2021 vs 6.4% in 2019/2020), but patients without concomitant COVID-19 infection had lower mortality rates compared with the year before (5.3%). Admission during the pandemic was associated with a 11% increase in the daily risk of hospital death for patients with hip fracture (HRCS 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16). Conclusions Although COVID-19 infections led to increases in hospital mortality, overall hospital mortality risk for older patients with hip fracture remained largely stable during the first year of the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The daily management of long-term conditions falls primarily on individuals and informal carers, but the impact of household context on health and social care activity among people with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) is understudied. Aim: To test whether co-residence with a person with MLTCs (compared with a co-resident without MLTCs) is associated with utilisation and cost of primary, community, secondary health care, and formal social care. Design & setting: Linked data from health providers and local government in Barking and Dagenham for a retrospective cohort of people aged ≥50 years in two-person households in 2016–2018. Method: Two-part regression models were applied to estimate annualised use and cost of hospital, primary, community, mental health, and social care by MLTC status of individuals and co-residents, adjusted for age, sex, and deprivation. Applicability at the national level was tested using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Results: Forty-eight per cent of people with MLTCs in two-person households were co-resident with another person with MLTCs. They were 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 1.30) times as likely to have community care activity and 1.24 (95% CI = 0.99 to 1.54) times as likely to have mental health care activity compared with those co-resident with a healthy person. They had more primary care visits (8.5 [95% CI = 8.2 to 8.8] versus 7.9 [95% CI = 7.7 to 8.2]) and higher primary care costs. Outpatient care and elective admissions did not differ. Findings in national data were similar. Conclusion: Care utilisation for people with MLTCs varies by household context. There may be potential for connecting health and community service input across household members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Longer GP consultations are recommended as one way of improving care for people with multimorbidity. In Scotland, patients who are multimorbid and living in deprived areas do not have longer consultations, although their counterparts in the least deprived areas do. This example of the inverse care law has not been examined in England.Aim: To assess GP consultation length by socioeconomic deprivation and multimorbidity.Design and Setting: Random sample of 1.2 million consultations from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2016 for 190 036 adults in England drawn from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.Method: Consultation duration was derived from time of opening and closing the patient's electronic record. Mean duration was estimated by multimorbidity level and type, adjusted for number of consultations and other patient and staff characteristics and patient and practice random effects.Results: Consultations lasted 10.9 minutes on average and mean duration increased with number of conditions. Patients with ≥6 conditions had 0.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.8 to 1.0) minutes longer than those with none. Patients who are multimorbid and with a mental health condition had 0.5 (CI = 0.4 to 0.5) minutes longer than patients who were not multimorbid. However, consultations were 0.5 (CI = 0.4 to 0.5) minutes shorter in the most compared with the least deprived fifth of areas at all levels of multimorbidity.Conclusion: GPs in England spend longer with patients who have more conditions, but, at all multimorbidity levels, those in deprived areas have less time per GP consultation. Further research is needed to assess the impact of consultation length on patient and system outcomes for those with multimorbidity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To contribute objective evidence on health care utilization among migrants to the UK to inform policy and service planning. Methods: We analysed data from Understanding Society, a household survey with fieldwork from 2015 to 2017, and the European Health Interview Survey with data collected between 2013 and 2014. We explored health service utilization among migrants to the UK across primary care, inpatient admissions and maternity care, outpatient care, mental health, dental care and physiotherapy. We adjusted for age, sex, long-term health conditions and time since moving to the UK. Results: Health care utilization among migrants to the UK was lower than utilization among the UK-born population for all health care dimensions except inpatient admissions for childbirth; odds ratio (95%CI) range 0.58 (0.50–0.68) for dental care to 0.88 (0.78–0.98) for primary care). After adjusting for differences in age and self-reported health, these differences were no longer observed, except for dental care (odds ratio 0.57, 95%CI 0.49–0.66, P < 0.001). Across primary care, outpatient and inpatient care, utilization was lower among those who had recently migrated, increasing to the levels of the nonmigrant population after 10 years or more since migrating to the UK. Conclusions: This study finds that newly arrived migrants tend to utilize less health care than the UK population and that this pattern was at least partly explained by better health, and younger age. Our findings contribute nationally representative evidence to inform public debate and decision-making on migration and health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opportunity costs of bed-days are fundamental to understanding the value of healthcare systems. They greatly influence burden of disease estimations and economic evaluations involving stays in healthcare facilities. However, different estimation techniques employ assumptions that differ crucially in whether to consider the value of the second-best alternative use forgone, of any available alternative use, or the value of the actually chosen alternative. Informed by economic theory, this paper provides a taxonomic framework of methodologies for estimating the opportunity costs of resources. This taxonomy is then applied to bed-days by classifying existing approaches accordingly. We highlight differences in valuation between approaches and the perspective adopted, and we use our framework to appraise the assumptions and biases underlying the standard approaches that have been widely adopted mostly unquestioned in the past, such as the conventional use of reference costs and administrative accounting data. Drawing on these findings, we present a novel approach for estimating the opportunity costs of bed-days in terms of health forgone for the second-best patient, but expressed monetarily. This alternative approach effectively re-connects to the concept of choice and explicitly considers net benefits. It is broadly applicable across settings and for other resources besides bed-days. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are thought to be important reservoirs of antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria; however, there is no routine surveillance of resistance in LTCF residents, or large population-based studies comparing AMR in LTCFs with the community, so the relative burden of AMR in LTCFs remains unknown.Objectives: To compare the frequency of antibiotic resistance of urinary tract bacteria from residents of LTCFs for the elderly and adults aged 70 years or older living in the community.Methods: Positive urine specimens reported to any diagnostic microbiology laboratory in the West Midlands region (England) from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2014 collected from individuals aged 70 years or older were analysed. The resistance of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella to trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, third-generation cephalosporins and ciprofloxacin and the rate of laboratory-confirmed E. coli and Klebsiella urinary tract infection (UTI) were assessed in LTCF residents and in the community.Results: LTCF residents had a laboratory-confirmed E. coli and Klebsiella UTI rate of 21 per 100 person years compared with 8 per 100 person years in the elderly living in the community [rate ratio (RR)=2.66, 95% CI = 2.58-2.73] and a higher rate of developing E. coli and Klebsiella UTIs caused by bacteria resistant to trimethoprim (RR = 4.41, 95% CI = 4.25-4.57), nitrofurantoin (RR = 4.38, 95% CI = 3.98-4.83), ciprofloxacin (RR = 5.18, 95% CI = 4.82-5.57) and third-generation cephalosporins (RR = 4.49, 95% CI = 4.08-4.94).Conclusions: Residents of LTCFs for the elderly had more than double the rate of E. coli and Klebsiella UTI and more than four times the rate of E. coli and Klebsiella UTI caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria compared with those living in the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent evidence suggests that less than one-quarter of patients with symptomatic nosocomial Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) are linked to other in-patients. However, this evidence was limited to one geographic area. We aimed to investigate the level of symptomatic CDI transmission in hospitals located across England from 2008 to 2012. Methods: A generalized additive mixed-effects Poisson model was fitted to English hospital-surveillance data. After adjusting for seasonal fluctuations and between-hospital variation in reported CDI over time, possible clustering (transmission between symptomatic in-patients) of CDI cases was identified. We hypothesised that a temporal proximity would be reflected in the degree of correlation between in-hospital CDI cases per week. This correlation was modelled through a latent autoregressive structure of order 1 (AR(1)). Findings: Forty-six hospitals (33 general, seven specialist, and six teaching hospitals) located in all English regions met our criteria. In total, 12,717 CDI cases were identified; seventy-five per cent of these occurred >48 hours after admission. There were slight increases in reports during winter months. We found a low, but statistically significant, correlation between successive weekly CDI case incidences (phi = 0.029, 95%CI: 0.009–0.049). This correlation was five times stronger in a subgroup analysis restricted to teaching hospitals (phi = 0.104, 95%CI: 0.048–0.159). Conclusions: The results suggest that symptomatic patient-to-patient transmission has been a source of CDI-acquisition in English hospitals in recent years, and that this might be a more important transmission route in teaching hospitals. Nonetheless, the weak correlation indicates that, in line with recent evidence, symptomatic cases might not be the primary source of nosocomial CDI in England. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction:The English Department of Health introduced universal MRSA screening of admissions to English hospitals in 2010. It commissioned a national audit to review implementation, impact on patient management, admission prevalence and extra yield of MRSA identified compared to “high-risk” specialty or “checklist-activated” screening (CLAS) of patients with MRSA risk factors. Methods:National audit May 2011. Questionnaires to infection control teams in all English NHS acute trusts, requesting number patients admitted and screened, new or previously known MRSA; MRSA point prevalence; screening and isolation policies; individual risk factors and patient management for all new MRSA patients and random sample of negatives. Results:144/167 (86.2%) trusts responded. Individual patient data for 760 new MRSA patients and 951 negatives. 61% of emergency admissions (median 67.3%), 81% (median 59.4%) electives and 47% (median 41.4%) day-cases were screened. MRSA admission prevalence: 1% (median 0.9%) emergencies, 0.6% (median 0.4%) electives, 0.4% (median 0%) day-cases. Approximately 50% all MRSA identified was new. Inpatient MRSA point prevalence: 3.3% (median 2.9%). 104 (77%) trusts pre-emptively isolated patients with previous MRSA, 63 (35%) pre-emptively isolated admissions to “high-risk” specialties; 7 (5%) used PCR routinely. Mean time to MRSA positive result: 2.87 days (±1.33); 37% (219/596) newly identified MRSA patients discharged before result available; 55% remainder (205/376) isolated post-result. In an average trust, CLAS would reduce screening by 50%, identifying 81% of all MRSA. “High risk” specialty screening would reduce screening by 89%, identifying 9% of MRSA. Conclusions:Implementation of universal screening was poor. Admission prevalence (new cases) was low. CLAS reduced screening effort for minor decreases in identification, but implementation may prove difficult. Cost effectiveness of this and other policies, awaits evaluation by transmission dynamic economic modelling, using data from this audit. Until then trusts should seek to improve implementation of current policy and use of isolation facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]