Background In response to issues with timely access and high non-attendance rates for Emergency Department (ED) physiotherapy, a telephone assessment and advice service was evaluated as part of a quality improvement project. This telehealth option requires minimal resources, with the added benefit of allowing the healthcare professional streamline care. A primary aim was to investigate whether this service model can reduce wait times and non-attendance rates, compared to usual care. A secondary aim was to evaluate service user acceptability. Methods This was a single-site quality improvement cohort study that compares data on wait time to first physiotherapy contact, non-attendance rates and participant satisfaction between patients that opted for a service based on initial telephone assessment and advice, versus routine face-to-face appointments. 116 patients were referred for ED physiotherapy over the 3-month pilot at the ED and out-patient physiotherapy department, XMercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland. 91 patients (78%) opted for the telephone assessment and advice service, with 40% (n=36) contacting the service. 25 patients (22%) opted for the face-to-face service. Data on wait time and non-attendance rates was gathered using the hospital data reporting system. Satisfaction data was collected on discharge using a satisfaction survey adapted from the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire. Independent-samples t-test or Mann Whitney U Test was utilised depending on the distribution of the data. For categorical data, Chi-Square tests were performed. A level of significance of p ≤ 0.05 was set for this study. Results Those that contacted the telephone assessment and advice service had a significantly reduced wait time (median 6 days; 3–8 days) compared to those that opted for usual care (median 35 days; 19–39 days) (p ≤ 0.05). There was no significant between-group differences for non-attendance rates or satisfaction. Conclusion A telephone assessment and advice service may be useful in minimising delays for advice for those referred to ED Physiotherapy for musculoskeleltal problems. This telehealth option appears to be broadly acceptable and since it can be introduced rapidly, it may be helpful in triaging referrals and minimising face-to-face consultations, in line with COVID-19 recommendations. However, a large scale randomised controlled trial is warranted to confirm these findings.

We evaluated legislation introduced into Victoria in 1991 requiring that all children enrolling in primary school certify their immunisation status. Information was requested from all local councils. All primary schools in two local government areas were followed up, providing an indication of the validity of the analysis obtained from data collected during the mid‐year census. From 166 of 210 local councils in Victoria, 48 422 documents relating to school entry immunisation certificates were issued for children entering their preparatory year. At least 522 children were enrolled in school on an undertaking to complete immunisation, and were likely to have had their immunisation completed as a result of the legislation. Only 170 statutory declarations of conscientious objection to immunisation were made, indicating that few parents are willing to express firm anti‐vaccine sentiments. Compliance with the immunisation certificate legislation is overestimated by the mid‐year census because many schools have accepted nonstatutory evidence of immunisation. Mobile and immigrant families find it particularly difficult to achieve certification. Local councils are inconsistent in the way in which they issue certificates. Further follow‐up and feedback is essential to better inform schools and parents about the legislation. Such follow‐up can improve the certification rates of children then and in subsequent years. The legislation has imposed a considerable workload on councils, but without efforts to improve compliance with the legislation and to develop practical guidelines for documentation of immunisation and appropriate guidelines regarding transfer, many inadequately immunised children may remain at risk from vaccine‐preventable diseases.

Background Clinical trials are often considered the gold standard in cancer care. However, patients face barriers in trial participation including distances to cancer centres and personal costs including changing employment status, cost of medications, inpatient admissions, and parking tariffs. Aim Our aim was to compare the distances patients travelled for clinical trials compared to those receiving standard systemic anticancer therapy (SACT). We also investigated the additional costs associated with this. Methods This was a retrospective review of electronic patient medical records. The distance from the patients’ home address to Beaumont was calculated as a one-way journey in kilometres. Patients attending for clinical trials were compared to those receiving standard of care SACT. Results A total of 271 patients receiving standard SACT over a 5-day period and 111 patients enrolled on 24 clinical trials were included. The median one-way distance travelled by patients enrolled in clinical trials was 41.4 km, compared to 14 km in those patients’ receiving standard of care SACT. The median estimated cost was €13 vs €4.20 for those enrolled on clinical trials compared to those receiving standard of care treatment, respectively. Conclusion Patients enrolled on clinical trials often travel more than twice as far to receive their anti-cancer treatment compared to those receiving standard of care SACT and incur an increased cost of travel expenses.

BackgroundIn response to issues with timely access and high non-attendance rates for Emergency Department (ED) physiotherapy, a telephone assessment and advice service was evaluated as part of a quality improvement project. This telehealth option requires minimal resources, with the added benefit of allowing the healthcare professional streamline care. A primary aim was to investigate whether this service model can reduce wait times and non-attendance rates, compared to usual care. A secondary aim was to evaluate service user acceptability.MethodsThis was a single-site quality improvement cohort study that compares data on wait time to first physiotherapy contact, non-attendance rates and participant satisfaction between patients that opted for a service based on initial telephone assessment and advice, versus routine face-to-face appointments. 116 patients were referred for ED physiotherapy over the 3-month pilot at the ED and out-patient physiotherapy department, X, Ireland. 91 patients (78%) opted for the telephone assessment and advice service, with 40% (n=36) contacting the service. 25 patients (22%) opted for the face-to-face service. Data on wait time and non-attendance rates was gathered using the hospital data reporting system. Satisfaction data was collected on discharge using a satisfaction survey adapted from the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire. Independent-samples t-test or Mann Whitney U Test was utilised depending on the distribution of the data. For categorical data, Chi-Square tests were performed. A level of significance of p ≤ 0.05 was set for this study.ResultsThose that contacted the telephone assessment and advice service had a significantly reduced wait time (median 6 days; 3 – 8 days) compared to those that opted for usual care (median 35 days; 19 – 39 days) (p ≤ 0.05). There was no significant between-group differences for non-attendance rates or satisfaction.ConclusionA telephone assessment and advice service may be useful in minimising delays for advice for those referred to ED Physiotherapy for musculoskeleltal problems. This telehealth option appears to be broadly acceptable and since it can be introduced rapidly, it may be helpful in triaging referrals and minimising face-to-face consultations, in line with COVID-19 recommendations. However, a large scale randomised controlled trial is warranted to confirm these findings.

No abstract