Search

Abstract Background The continued increase in hospital admissions is a significant and complex issue facing health services. There is little research exploring patient perspectives or examining individual admissions among patients with frequent admissions for chronic ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) conditions. This paper aims to describe characteristics of older, rural patients frequently admitted with ACS conditions and identify factors associated with their admissions from the patient perspective. Methods Patients aged 65+ resident in North Coast NSW with three or more admissions for selected ACS chronic conditions within a 12 month period, were invited to participate in a postal survey and follow up telephone call. Survey and telephone data were linked to admission and health service program data. Descriptive statistics were generated for survey respondents; logistic regression models developed to compare characteristics of patients with 3 or with 4+ admissions; and comparisons made between survey respondents and non-respondents. Results Survey respondents (n=102) had a mean age of 77.1 years (range 66–95 years), and a mean of 4.1 admissions within 12 months; 49% had at least three chronic conditions; the majority had low socioeconomic status; one in five (22%) reported some difficulty affording their medication; and 35% lived alone. The majority reported psychological distress with 31% having moderate or severe psychological distress. While all had a GP, only 38% reported having a written GP care plan. 22% of those who needed regular help with daily tasks did not have a close friend or relative who regularly cared for them. Factors independently associated with more frequent (n=4+) relative to less frequent (n=3) admissions included having congestive heart failure (p=0.003), higher social isolation scores (p=0.040) and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (p=0.049). Most respondents (61%) felt there was nothing that could have avoided their most recent admission, although some potential avoidability of admission was described around medication and health behaviours. Respondents were younger and less sick than non-respondents. Conclusions This study provides a detailed description of older patients with multiple chronic conditions and a history of frequent admission in rural Australia. Our results suggest that programs targeting medication use, health behaviours and social isolation may help reduce multiple hospital admissions for chronic disease.

Abstract Background Frequent and potentially avoidable hospital admission amongst older patients with ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) chronic conditions is a major topic for research internationally, driven by the imperative to understand and therefore reduce hospital admissions. Research to date has mostly focused on analysis of routine data using ACS as a proxy for 'potentially avoidable'. There has been less research on the antecedents of frequent and/or avoidable admission from the perspectives of patients or those offering community based care and support for these patients. This study aimed to explore community based service providers' perspectives on the factors contributing to admission among older patients with chronic disease and a history of frequent and potentially avoidable admission. Methods 15 semi-structured interviews with community based providers of health care and other services, and an emergency department physician were conducted. Summary documents were produced and thematic analysis undertaken. Results A range of complex barriers which limit or inhibit access to services were reported. We classified these as external and internal barriers. Important external barriers included: complexity of provision of services, patients' limited awareness of different services and their inexperience in accessing services, patients needing a higher level or longer length of service than they currently have access to, or an actual lack of available services, patient poverty, rurality, and transport. Important internal barriers included: fear (of change for example), a 'stoic' attitude to life, and for some, the difficulty of accepting their changed health status. Conclusions The factors underlying frequent and/or potentially avoidable admission are numerous and complex. Identifying strategies to improve services or interventions for this group requires understanding patient, carer and service providers' perspectives. Improving accessibility of services is also complex, and includes consideration of patients' social, emotional and psychological ability and willingness to use services as well as those services being available and easily accessed.

Background: Potentially preventable hospitalizations (PPH) are defined as unplanned hospital admissions which could potentially have been prevented with the provision of effective, timely outpatient care. To better understand and ultimately reduce rates of PPH, a means of identifying those which are actually preventable is required. The Preventability Assessment Tool (PAT) was designed for use by hospital clinicians to assess the preventability of unplanned admissions for chronic conditions.Objective: The present study examined the ability of the PAT to distinguish between those unplanned admissions which are preventable and those which are not, compared to the assessments of an Expert Panel.Methods: Data were collected between November 2014 and June 2017 at three hospitals in NSW, Australia. Participants were community-dwelling patients with unplanned hospital admissions for congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes complications or angina pectoris. A nurse and a doctor caring for the patient made assessments of the preventability of the admission using the PAT. Expert Panels made assessments of the preventability of each admission based on a comprehensive case report and consensus process.Results: There was little concordance between the hospital doctors and nurses regarding the preventability of admissions, nor between the assessments of the Expert Panel and the hospital nurse or the Expert Panel and the hospital doctor.Conclusions: The PAT demonstrated poor concurrent validity and is not a valid tool for assessing the preventability of unplanned hospital admissions. The use of Expert Panels provides a more rigorous approach to assessing the preventability of such admissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]