BackgroundResidents of aged care facilities use increasingly complex medication regimens. Reducing unnecessary medication regimen complexity (eg, by consolidating the number of administration times or using alternative formulations) may benefit residents and staff.ObjectiveTo develop and validate an implicit tool to facilitate medication regimen simplification in aged care facilities.MethodA purposively selected multidisciplinary expert panel used modified nominal group technique to identify and prioritize factors important in determining whether a medication regimen can be simplified. The five prioritized factors were formulated as questions, pilot-tested using non-identifiable medication charts and refined by panel members. The final tool was validated by two clinical pharmacists who independently applied the tool to a random sample of 50 residents of aged care facilities to identify opportunities for medication regimen simplification. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using Cohen’s kappa.ResultsThe Medication Regimen Simplification Guide for Residential Aged CarE (MRS GRACE) was developed as an implicit tool comprising of five questions about 1) the resident; 2) regulatory and safety requirements; 3) drug interactions; 4) formulation; and 5) facility and follow-up considerations. Using MRS GRACE, two pharmacists independently simplified medication regimens for 29/50 and 30/50 residents (Cohen’s kappa=0.38, 95% CI 0.12–0.64), respectively. Simplification was possible for all residents with five or more administration times. Changing an administration time comprised 75% of the two pharmacists’ recommendations.ConclusionsUsing MRS GRACE, two clinical pharmacists independently simplified over half of residents’ medication regimens with fair agreement. MRS GRACE is a promising new tool to guide medication regimen simplification in aged care.
Background and AimTo investigate the quality of and reasons for referrals of patients with likely functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) and explore patients’ experience of clinical management.MethodsA cross sectional, mixed‐methods study was undertaken. Referrals (July 2013–2015) to one gastroenterology outpatient department triaged as “likely FGID”, the referred patients and their referring primary healthcare providers were examined.ResultsA total of 69% of patients reported not yet receiving an initial diagnosis, 52% reported persistent/distressing symptoms or reduced quality of life, 24% feared missed or worsening pathology, and 35% were seeking repeat specialist consultation. Most patients were dissatisfied (40%) or only partially satisfied (36%) with current management. Dissatisfaction was significantly related to the lack of provision of a diagnosis and effective treatment options (P < 0.001). Referral quality was poor and with the reason for referral clearly communicated in only 25%. Common referral reasons included repeat presentations (n = 32), diagnostic uncertainty (n = 19), to ensure nothing is missed (n = 19), patient request (n = 17), no response to treatment (n = 16), and to allay patient fears (n = 14). A total of 28/60 primary healthcare providers were confident that their patient had a FGID, yet sought confirmation (n = 16), second opinion (n = 8), or advice (n = 4).ConclusionCurrent management of FGID in usual care is suboptimal, as evidenced by the tertiary referral load, patient dissatisfaction, and the lack of provision of diagnoses and effective treatment options. Some clinicians lack confidence in effectively identifying and managing these conditions. Resources and supports to equip and assist clinicians to identify and manage FGID successfully may enhance patient care.
Background Greater continuity of care has been associated with lower hospital admissions and patient mortality. This systematic review aims to examine the impact of relational continuity between primary care professionals and older people receiving aged care services, in residential or home care settings, on health care resource use and person-centred outcomes. Methods Systematic review of five databases, four trial registries and three grey literature sources to October 2020. Included studies (a) aimed to increase relational continuity with a primary care professional, (b) focused on older people receiving aged care services (c) included a comparator and (d) reported outcomes of health care resource use, quality of life, activities of daily living, mortality, falls or satisfaction. Cochrane Collaboration or Joanna Briggs Institute criteria were used to assess risk of bias and GRADE criteria to rate confidence in evidence and conclusions. Results Heterogeneity in study cohorts, settings and outcome measurement in the five included studies (one randomised) precluded meta-analysis. None examined relational continuity exclusively with non-physician providers. Higher relational continuity with a primary care physician probably reduces hospital admissions (moderate certainty evidence; high versus low continuity hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–0.96, n = 178,686; incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.76–1.27, n = 246) and emergency department (ED) presentations (moderate certainty evidence; high versus low continuity HR 0.90, 95%CI 0.89–0.92, n = 178,686; IRR 0.91, 95%CI 0.72–1.15, n = 246) for older community-dwelling aged care recipients. The benefit of providing on-site primary care for relational continuity in residential settings is uncertain (low certainty evidence, 2 studies, n = 2,468 plus 15 care homes); whilst there are probably lower hospitalisations and may be fewer ED presentations, there may also be an increase in reported mortality and falls. The benefit of general practitioners’ visits during hospital admission is uncertain (very low certainty evidence, 1 study, n = 335). Conclusion Greater relational continuity with a primary care physician probably reduces hospitalisations and ED presentations for community-dwelling aged care recipients, thus policy initiatives that increase continuity may have cost offsets. Further studies of approaches to increase relational continuity of primary care within aged care, particularly in residential settings, are needed. Review registration CRD42021215698.
ObjectivesTo examine the incidence and trends in primary care, allied health, geriatric, pain and palliative care service use by permanent residential aged care (PRAC) residents and the older Australian population.MethodsRepeated cross‐sectional analyses on PRAC residents (N = 318,484) and the older (≥65 years) Australian population (N ~ 3.5 million). Outcomes were Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) subsidised primary care, allied health, geriatric, pain and palliative services between 2012–13 and 2016–17. GEE Poisson models estimated incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (IRR).ResultsIn 2016–17, PRAC residents had a median of 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 5–19) regular general medical practitioner (GP) attendances, 3 (IQR 1–6) after‐hours attendances and 5% saw a geriatrician. Highlights of utilisation changes from 2012–13 to 2016–17 include the following: GP attendances increased by 5%/year (IRR = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.05) for residents compared to 1%/year (IRR = 1.01, 95%CI 1.01–1.01) for the general population. GP after‐hours attendances increased by 15%/year (IRR = 1.15, 95%CI 1.14–1.15) for residents and 9%/year (IRR = 1.08, 95%CI 1.07–1.20) for the general population. GP management plans increased by 12%/year (IRR = 1.12, 95%CI 1.11–1.12) for residents and 10%/year (IRR = 1.10, 95%CI 1.09–1.11) for the general population. Geriatrician consultations increased by 28%/year (IRR = 1.28, 95%CI 1.27–1.29) for residents compared to 14%/year (IRR = 1.14, 95%CI 1.14–1.15) in the general population.ConclusionsThe utilisation of most examined services increased in both cohorts over time. Preventive and management care, by primary care and allied health care providers, was low and likely influences the utilisation of other attendances. PRAC residents' access to pain, palliative and geriatric medicine services is low and may not address the residents' needs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.