64 research outputs found

    Persistence of low drug treatment coverage for injection drug users in large US metropolitan areas

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>Injection drug users (IDUs) are at high risk for HIV, hepatitis, overdose and other harms. Greater drug treatment availability has been shown to reduce these harms among IDUs. Yet, little is known about changes in drug treatment availability for IDUs in the U.S. This paper investigates change in drug treatment coverage for IDUs in 90 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) during 1993-2002.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We define <it>treatment coverage </it>as the percent of IDUs who are in treatment. The number of IDUs in drug treatment is calculated from treatment entry data and treatment census data acquired from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, divided by our estimated number of IDUs in each MSA.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Treatment coverage was low in 1993 (mean 6.7%; median 6.0%) and only increased to a mean of 8.3% and median of 8.0% coverage in 2002.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although some MSAs experienced increases in treatment coverage over time, overall levels of coverage were low. The persistence of low drug treatment coverage for IDUs represents a failure by the U.S. health care system to prevent avoidable harms and unnecessary deaths in this population. Policy makers should expand drug treatment for IDUs to reduce blood-borne infections and community harms associated with untreated injection drug use.</p

    In-reach specialist nursing teams for residential care homes : uptake of services, impact on care provision and cost-effectiveness

    Get PDF
    Background: A joint NHS-Local Authority initiative in England designed to provide a dedicated nursing and physiotherapy in-reach team (IRT) to four residential care homes has been evaluated.The IRT supported 131 residents and maintained 15 'virtual' beds for specialist nursing in these care homes. Methods: Data captured prospectively (July 2005 to June 2007) included: numbers of referrals; reason for referral; outcome (e.g. admission to IRT bed, short-term IRT support); length of stay in IRT; prevented hospital admissions; early hospital discharges; avoided nursing home transfers; and detection of unrecognised illnesses. An economic analysis was undertaken. Results: 733 referrals were made during the 2 years (range 0.5 to 13.0 per resident per annum)resulting in a total of 6,528 visits. Two thirds of referrals aimed at maintaining the resident's independence in the care home. According to expert panel assessment, 197 hospital admissions were averted over the period; 20 early discharges facilitated; and 28 resident transfers to a nursing home prevented. Detection of previously unrecognised illnesses accounted for a high number of visits. Investment in IRT equalled £44.38 per resident per week. Savings through reduced hospital admissions, early discharges, delayed transfers to nursing homes, and identification of previously unrecognised illnesses are conservatively estimated to produce a final reduction in care cost of £6.33 per resident per week. A sensitivity analysis indicates this figure might range from a weekly overall saving of £36.90 per resident to a 'worst case' estimate of £2.70 extra expenditure per resident per week. Evaluation early in implementation may underestimate some cost-saving activities and greater savings may emerge over a longer time period. Similarly, IRT costs may reduce over time due to the potential for refinement of team without major loss in effectiveness. Conclusion: Introduction of a specialist nursing in-reach team for residential homes is at least cost neutral and, in all probability, cost saving. Further benefits include development of new skills in the care home workforce and enhanced quality of care. Residents are enabled to stay in familiar surroundings rather than unnecessarily spending time in hospital or being transferred to a higher dependency nursing home setting

    Can Healthcare Assistant Training (CHAT) improve the relational care of older people? A developmental and feasibility study of a complex intervention

    Get PDF
    Background: Older people account for an increasing proportion of those receiving NHS acute care. The quality of healthcare delivered to older people has come under increased scrutiny. Healthcare assistants (HCAs) provide much of the direct care of older people in hospital. Patients’ experience of care tends to be based on the relational aspects of that care including dignity, empathy and emotional support. Objective(s): We aimed to: understand the relational care training needs of HCAs caring for older people; design a relational care training intervention for HCAs; and assess the feasibility of a cluster-randomised controlled trial to test the new intervention against HCA training as usual. Design: (1) Telephone survey of all NHS hospital Trusts in England to assess current HCA training provision; (2) focus groups of older people and carers and (3) semi-structured interviews with HCAs and other care staff to establish training needs and inform intervention development; (4) feasibility cluster-randomised controlled trial. Setting: (1) All acute NHS hospital Trusts in England; (2,3,4) Three acute NHS hospital Trusts in England and the populations they serve. Participants: (1) 113 of 161 (70.2%) Trusts took part in the telephone survey; (2) 29 older people or carer participants of three focus groups; (3) 30 HCA and 24 ‘other staff’ interviewees; (4) 12 wards (four per Trust); 112 HCAs; 92 patients during the pre-randomisation period and 67 patients during the post-randomisation period. Interventions: For the feasibility trial a training intervention (Older People’s Shoes) for HCAs developed as part of the study was compared with HCA training as usual. Main outcome measures: Patient level outcomes were the experience of emotional care and quality of life during their hospital stay as measured by the Patient Evaluation of Emotional Care during Hospitalisation (PEECH) and the European Quality of Life (EQ-5D) questionnaires. HCA outcomes were empathy measured by the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) and attitudes towards older people measured by the Age Group Evaluation and Description (AGED) Inventory. Ward level outcomes were the quality of HCA/patient interaction measured by the Quality of Interaction Scale (QUIS). Results: (1) A third of Trust telephone survey participants reported HCA training content that we considered to be ‘relational care’. Training for HCAs is variable across Trusts and focused on new recruits. The biggest challenge for HCA training is getting HCAs released from ward duties. (2) Older people and carers are aware of the pressures ward staff are under but good relationships with care staff determines whether the experience of hospital is positive. (3) HCAs have training needs related to ‘difficult conversations’ with patients and relatives; they have particular preferences for learning styles that are not always reflected in available training. (4) In the feasibility trial 187 of the 192 planned ward observation sessions were completed; response to HCA questionnaires at baseline, eight and 12 weeks post-randomisation was 64.2%, 46.4% and 35.7% respectively; 57.2% of eligible patients returned completed questionnaires. Limitations: This was an intervention development and feasibility study so no conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of the intervention. Conclusions: The intervention had high acceptability among nurse trainers and HCA learners. Viability of a definitive trial is conditional on overcoming specific methodological (patient recruitment processes) and contextual (involvement of wider ward team) challenges. Future work: Methods to ease the burden of questionnaire completion without compromising ethics or methodological rigour need to be explored. Study registration: ISRCTN1038579

    Improving care for people with dementia: development and initial feasibility study for evaluation of life story work in dementia care

    Get PDF
    Background: Improving dementia care quality is an urgent priority nationally and internationally. Life story work (LSW) is an intervention that aims to improve individual outcomes and care for people with dementia and their carers. LSW gathers information and artefacts about the person, their history and interests, and produces a tangible output: the ‘life story’. Objective: To establish whether or not full evaluation of LSW was feasible. Design: Mixed-methods feasibility study. Methods: In-depth interviews and focus groups explored experiences of LSW and best practice with people with dementia, family members and dementia care staff. A systematic review explored best practice and theories of change for LSW. These stages helped to identify the outcomes and resources to explore in the feasibility study. A representative sample survey of health and social care dementia care providers in England established LSW practice in different settings. A survey of a self-selected sample of family members of people with dementia explored how LSW is experienced. Two small outcome studies (stepped-wedge study in six care homes and pre-test post-test study in inpatient specialist dementia care wards) explored the feasibility of full evaluation of LSW in these settings. Settings: Survey: generalist and specialist care homes; NHS dementia care settings; and community dementia services. Feasibility study: care homes and NHS inpatient dementia care wards. Participants: NHS and social care services, people with dementia, family carers, care home staff and NHS staff. Interventions: LSW. Main outcome measures: Spread of LSW and good practice, quality of life (QoL) for the person with dementia and carers, relationships between people with dementia and family carers, staff attitudes about dementia, staff burnout, resource use and costs. Review methods: Narrative review and synthesis, following Centre for Review and Dissemination guidelines. Results: Good practice in LSW is identifiable, as are theories of change about how it might affect given outcomes. Indicators of best practice were produced. LSW is spreading but practice and use vary between care settings and are not always in line with identified good practice. Two different models of LSW are evident; these are likely to be appropriate at different stages of the dementia journey. The feasibility study showed some positive changes in staff attitudes towards dementia and, for some people with dementia, improvements in QoL. These may be attributable to LSW but these potential benefits require full evaluation. The feasibility work established the likely costs of LSW and highlighted the challenges of future evaluation in care homes and inpatient dementia care settings. Limitations: There was insufficient evidence in the literature to allow estimation of outcome size. We did not carry out planned Markov chain modelling to inform decisions about carrying out future evaluation because of the dearth of outcome data in the literature; low levels of data return for people with dementia in the hospital settings; lack of detected effect for most people with dementia; and questions about implementation in the research settings. Conclusions: LSW is used across different health and social care settings in England, but in different ways, not all of which reflect ‘good practice’. This large, complex study identified a wide range of challenges for future research, but also the possibility that LSW may help to improve care staff attitudes towards dementia and QoL for some people with dementia. Future work: Full evaluation of LSW as an intervention to improve staff attitudes and care is feasible with researchers based in or very close to care settings to ensure high-quality data collection. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. Keywords

    Social and emotional outcomes of Australian children from Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds

    Get PDF
    Objectives: 1) profile the living environments and 2) examine the social and emotional outcomes of Australian children from Indigenous and cultural and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds at school entry. Method: Secondary analysis of cross- sectional data collected in Wave 1 of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (n=4,735). Child mental-health outcomes were measured using parent report of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Results: Significant differences in family and neighbourhood characteristics, including parental income, maternal education, maternal parenting quality and neighbourhood safety, were found in children of Indigenous and CALD backgrounds compared to the reference group of Australian-born, English-speaking children. After controlling for family and neighbourhood characteristics, significant differences in parent-reported SDQ total difficulties were found for Indigenous children. Significant differences in emotional difficulties and peer problems subscales were found for children with overseas-born mothers regardless of English proficiency. Conclusions: Children from Indigenous and CALD backgrounds experience poorer mental health outcomes at school entry than their Australian-born English- speaking peers. They are also more likely to be exposed to risk factors for poor child mental-health outcomes within their family and neighbourhood environments

    Optimal strategies for monitoring lipid levels in patients at risk or with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review with statistical and cost-effectiveness modelling

    Full text link

    The planning population for childhood illnesses potentially requiring admission

    No full text
    SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:7604.579725(3) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

    The re-provision of learning disability services

    No full text
    SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:7604.579725(2) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

    What are the costs and benefits of the functional separation of elective and emergency surgery?

    No full text
    SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:7604.579725(1) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo
    corecore