Sue Kirby

Patient related factors in frequent readmissions: the influence of condition, access to services and patient choice

BackgroundPeople use emergency department services for a wide variety of health complaints, many of which could be handled outside hospitals. Many frequent readmissions are due to problems with chronic disease and are preventable. We postulated that patient related factors such as the type of condition, demographic factors, access to alternative services outside hospitals and patient preference for hospital or non-hospital services would influence readmissions for chronic disease. This study aimed to explore the link between frequent readmissions in chronic disease and these patient related factors.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on emergency department data collected from a regional hospital in NSW Australia in 2008. Frequently readmitted patients were defined as those with three or more admissions in a year. Clinical, service usage and demographic patient characteristics were examined for their influence on readmissions using multivariate analysis.ResultsThe emergency department received about 20,000 presentations a year involving some 16,000 patients. Most patients (80%) presented only once. In 2008 one hundred and forty four patients were readmitted three or more times in a year. About 20% of all presentations resulted in an admission. Frequently readmitted patients were more likely to be older, have an urgent Triage classification, present with an unplanned returned visit and have a diagnosis of neurosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dyspnoea or chronic heart failure. The chronic ambulatory care sensitive conditions were strongly associated with frequent readmissions. Frequent readmissions were unrelated to gender, time, day or season of presentation or country of birth.ConclusionsMultivariate analysis of routinely collected hospital data identified that the factors associated with frequent readmission include the type of condition, urgency, unplanned return visit and age. Interventions to improve patient uptake of chronic disease management services and improving the availability of alternative non-hospital services should reduce the readmission rate in chronic disease patients.

Should I and Can I?: A mixed methods study of clinician beliefs and attitudes in the management of lifestyle risk factors in primary health care

BackgroundPrimary health care (PHC) clinicians have an important role to play in addressing lifestyle risk factors for chronic diseases. However they intervene only rarely, despite the opportunities that arise within their routine clinical practice. Beliefs and attitudes have been shown to be associated with risk factor management practices, but little is known about this for PHC clinicians working outside general practice. The aim of this study was to explore the beliefs and attitudes of PHC clinicians about incorporating lifestyle risk factor management into their routine care and to examine whether these varied according to their self reported level of risk factor management.MethodsA cross sectional survey was undertaken with PHC clinicians (n = 59) in three community health teams. Clinicians beliefs and attitudes were also explored through qualitative interviews with a purposeful sample of 22 clinicians from the teams. Mixed methods analysis was used to compare beliefs and attitudes for those with high and low levels of self reported risk factor management.ResultsRole congruence, perceived client acceptability, beliefs about capabilities, perceived effectiveness and clinicians own lifestyle were key themes related to risk factor management practices. Those reporting high levels of risk factor screening and intervention had different beliefs and attitudes to those PHC clinicians who reported lower levels.ConclusionPHC clinicians level of involvement in risk factor management reflects their beliefs and attitudes about it. This provides insights into ways of intervening to improve the integration of behavioural risk factor management into routine practice.

What distinguishes clinicians who better support patients for chronic disease self-management?

Many frequent readmissions due to acute exacerbations of chronic disease could be prevented if patients self-managed. This study explored factors involved in patient activation for chronic disease self-management by qualitative analysis of interview data from hospital and community-based clinicians and patients. All clinicians reported that many frequently readmitted patients did not readily take up referral to chronic disease self-management services. This reluctance was compounded by system or access barriers. Clinicians who had a defined role in chronic disease management and patient-centred and behaviour change skills reported that although some patients were more resistant than others, patients could be persuaded to adopt self-management behaviours. Hospital clinicians and GPs were more inclined to attribute blame to clinical, social and personal patient factors, such as difficulty with support at home, social circumstances and reluctance to take responsibility. Investment in extending the skills and role of hospital clinicians and GPs to take a more supportive role in patient uptake of referrals to chronic disease self-management services would reduce hospital readmissions. Improvements in access to chronic disease self-management and GP services are also needed to address failure to take up chronic disease self-management.

Activating patients with chronic disease for self-management: Comparison of self-managing patients with those managing by frequent readmissions to hospital

Understanding the factors that activate people to self-manage chronic disease is important in improving uptake levels. If the many frequent hospital users who present with acute exacerbations of chronic disease were to self-manage at home, some hospital admissions would be avoided. Patient interview and demographic, psychological, clinical and service utilisation data were compared for two groups of patients with chronic disease: those attending self-management services and those who managed by using hospital services. Data were analysed to see whether there were differences that might explain the two different approaches to managing their conditions. The two groups were similar in terms of comorbidity, age, sex, home services, home support and educational level. Self-managing patients were activated by their clinician, accepted their disease, changed their identity, confronted emotions and learnt the skills to self-manage and avoid hospital. Patients who frequently used hospital services to manage their chronic disease were often in denial about their chronic disease, hung on to their identity and expressed little emotional response. However, they reported a stronger sense of coherence and rated their health more highly than self-managing patients. This study shed light on the process of patient activation for self-management. A better understanding of the process of patient activation would encourage clinicians who come into contact with frequently readmitted chronic disease patients to be more proactive in supporting self-management.

Frequent emergency attenders: is there a better way?

BACKGROUNDnUnderstanding the reasons for frequent re-attendances will assist in developing solutions to hospital overcrowding. This study aimed to identify the factors associated with frequent re-attendances in a regional hospital thereby highlighting possible solutions to the problem.nnnMETHODSnA retrospective analysis was performed on emergency department data from 2008. Frequent re-attenders were defined as those with four or more presentations in a year. Clinical, service usage and demographic patient characteristics were examined for their influence on re-presentations using multivariate analysis. RESULTS; A total of 8% of the total patients presenting to emergency re-attended four or more times in the year. Frequent re-attenders were older, presented with an unplanned returned visit and had a diagnosis of neurosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), convulsions, dyspnoea or repeat prescriptions, follow-up examinations or dressings and sutures and less likely to present in summer. Frequent re-attendances were unrelated to sex, time of presentation or country of birth.nnnCONCLUSIONSnDiversion of patients with minor conditions to alternative services; referral of COPD patients to follow-up respiratory services and patients with neurosis to community mental health services would reduce emergency utilisation. Improving access to and resourcing of alternative non-hospital services should be investigated to reduce emergency overcrowding.

Assessing program efficiency: a time and motion study of the mental health emergency care - rural access program in NSW Australia

The Mental Health Emergency Care-Rural Access Program (MHEC-RAP) is a telehealth solution providing specialist emergency mental health care to rural and remote communities across western NSW, Australia. This is the first time and motion (T&M) study to examine program efficiency and capacity for a telepsychiatry program. Clinical services are an integral aspect of the program accounting for 6% of all activities and 50% of the time spent conducting program activities, but half of this time is spent completing clinical paperwork. This finding emphasizes the importance of these services to program efficiency and the need to address variability of service provision to impact capacity. Currently, there is no efficiency benchmark for emergency telepsychiatry programs. Findings suggest that MHEC-RAP could increase its activity without affecting program responsiveness. T&M studies not only determine activity and time expenditure, but have a wider application assessing program efficiency by understanding, defining, and calculating capacity. T&M studies can inform future program development of MHEC-RAP and similar telehealth programs, both in Australia and overseas.

No longer ‘flying blind’: how access has changed emergency mental health care in rural and remote emergency departments, a qualitative study

BackgroundMental health presentations are considered to be a difficult aspect of emergency care. Although emergency department (ED) staff is qualified to provide emergency mental health care, for some, such presentations pose a challenge to their training, confidence, and time. Providing access to relevant and responsive specialist mental health care can influence care and management for these patients. The Mental Health Emergency Care-Rural Access Program (MHEC-RAP) is a telepsychiatry program that was established to improve access to specialist emergency mental health care across rural and remote western NSW, Australia.MethodThis study uses interviews with ED providers to understand their experience of managing emergency mental health patients and their use of MHEC-RAP. The lens of access was applied to assess program impact and inform continuing program development.ResultsWith MHEC-RAP, these ED providers are no longer ‘flying blind’. They are also more confident to manage and care for emergency mental health patients locally. For these providers, access to specialists who are able to conduct assessments and provide relevant and responsive advice for emergency mental health presentations was valued. Assessing the fit between the consumer and service as a requirement for the development, evaluation, and ongoing management of the service should result in decisions about design and delivery that achieve improved access to care and meet the needs of their consumers. The experience of these providers prior to MHEC-RAP is consistent with that reported in other rural and remote populations suggesting that MHEC-RAP could address limitations in access to specialist care and change the provision of emergency mental health care elsewhere.ConclusionMHEC-RAP has not only provided access to specialist mental health care for local ED providers, but it has changed their practice and perspective. MHEC-RAP could be adapted for implementation elsewhere. Provider experience confirms that the program is accessible and offers insights to those considering how to establish an emergency telepyschiatry service in other settings.

Are rural and remote patients, families and caregivers needs in life‐limiting illness different from those of urban dwellers? A narrative synthesis of the evidence

This review aimed to assess the evidence to answer the question whether palliative end-of-life care needs of patients and caregivers in rural and remote communities differs from those of urban dwellers. Peer-reviewed studies from 1996 to the present dealing with the experience of rural and remote patients and caregivers at the end-of-life compared with that of urban people were extracted for narrative synthesis. The eight studies included showed that palliative needs of rural and remote residents are related to context. Diagnosis and treatment are less well managed in rural areas. Rural differences include: people are more accepting of death and less likely to intervene to delay death; caregivers tend to be younger and include friends as well as family and local support networks are important. Rural and remote end-of-life needs are shaped by reduced access and availability of services which has a negative influence on outcomes. This is counterbalanced by an acceptance of death and local support networks. Well-designed longitudinal studies with samples comprised of rural and urban residents for comparison are required to monitor how end-of-life need might change with the approach of death. Clinicians, health services and policy makers need a better understanding of rural attitudes and of how rural community networks mobilise to support end-of-life care in their rural and remote communities.

A transferable telepsychiatry model for improving access to emergency mental health care.

The Mental Health Emergency Care-Rural Access Programme (MHEC) aims to improve access to specialist emergency mental health care in rural and remote communities in New South Wales. It provides a range of services including emergency telephone triage and video assessment. The present report provides a detailed description of the structure and function of the MHEC model, and identifies matters concerning adaptation and transferability. Structure: the MHEC can be contacted 24 hours/day, every day of the year; no caller is refused assistance. Function: the MHEC provides information services, clinical services and other programme activities. Adaptation of the model and implementation elsewhere (transferability) should be informed by local needs, existing practices and the components of access. The programme has already attracted the attention of two other regions in Australia interested in implementing emergency telepsychiatry programmes. The MHEC model is a practical solution for improving access to specialist emergency mental health care in underserved areas.

Use of a mental health emergency care-rural access programme in emergency departments

Hospital emergency departments (EDs) are common providers of emergency mental health care. Access to specialist expertise can affect and improve patient outcomes. The Mental Health Emergency Care-Rural Access Programme (MHEC) provides access to mental health specialists for rural and remote communities in western New South Wales. In 2011, 46 of the 48 EDs used the MHEC programme, which provided 1487 clinical services, an average of 29 services per week. This represented 60% of all MHEC activity. A video assessment was conducted during 571 (38%) of these MHEC contacts. Patients attending a non-base hospital (<50 beds) were twice as likely to receive a video assessment as those attending the larger base hospitals, and video was used more with increasing remoteness. Patients from non-base hospitals were also more likely to be admitted locally after a video assessment. When a decision to admit was made, patients from non-base hospital EDs assessed by video were less likely to be transferred out of their community to a mental health inpatient unit than those assessed by telephone triage only (46% vs 62%; Pu2009=u20090.016). The MHEC programme is a practical, relevant and responsive solution that was designed for the Australian health system, but the same model could be adapted for implementation in other countries.