The impact of mental illness on potentially preventable hospitalisations: a population-based cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Emerging evidence indicates an association between mental illness and poor quality of physical health care. To test this, we compared mental health clients (MHCs) with non-MHCs on potentially preventable hospitalisations (PPHs) as an indicator of the quality of primary care received.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Population-based retrospective cohort study of 139,208 MHCs and 294,180 matched non-MHCs in Western Australia from 1990 to 2006, using linked data from electoral roll registrations, mental health registry (MHR) records, hospital inpatient discharges and deaths. We used the electoral roll data as the sampling frame for both cohorts to enhance internal validity of the study, and the MHR to separate MHCs from non-MHCs. Rates of PPHs (overall and by PPH category and medical condition) were compared between MHCs, category of mental disorders and non-MHCs. Multivariate negative binomial regression analyses adjusted for socio-demographic factors, case mix and the year at the start of follow up due to dynamic nature of study cohorts.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>PPHs accounted for more than 10% of all hospital admissions in MHCs, with diabetes and its complications, adverse drug events (ADEs), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), convulsions and epilepsy, and congestive heart failure being the most common causes. Compared with non-MHCs, MHCs with any mental disorders were more likely to experience a PPH than non-MHCs (overall adjusted rate ratio (ARR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.03-2.09). ARRs of PPHs were highest for convulsions and epilepsy, nutritional deficiencies, COPD and ADEs. The ARR of a PPH was highest in MHCs with alcohol/drug disorders, affective psychoses, other psychoses and schizophrenia.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>MHCs have a significantly higher rate of PPHs than non-MHCs. Improving primary and secondary prevention is warranted in MHCs, especially at the primary care level, despite there may be different thresholds for admission in people with established physical disease that is influenced by whether or not they have comorbid mental illness.</p

General practitioner management plans delaying time to next potentially preventable hospitalisation for patients with heart failure

Background: Several studies have shown that the Australian Medicare-funded chronic disease management programme can lead to improvements in care processes. No study has examined the impact on long-term health outcomes.\ud \ud Aims: This retrospective cohort study assessed the association between provision of a general practitioner management plan and time to next potentially preventable hospitalisation for older patients with heart failure.\ud \ud Methods: We used the Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) claims database and compared patients exposed to a general practitioner management plan with those who did not receive the service. Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare time until next potentially preventable hospitalisation for heart failure between the exposed and unexposed groups.\ud \ud Results: There were 1993 patients exposed to a general practitioner management plan and 3986 unexposed patients. Adjusted results showed a 23% reduction in the rate of potentially preventable hospitalisation for heart failure at any time (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.92; P = 0.0051) among those with a general practitioner management plan compared with the unexposed patients. Within one year, 8.6% of the exposed group compared with 10.7% of the unexposed group had a potentially preventable hospitalisation for heart failure.\ud \ud Conclusions: A general practitioner management plan is associated with delayed time to next potentially preventable hospitalisation for heart failure

Orientation strategies during delirium: are they helpful?

Aim: This paper critiques literature that reports older person experiences of orientation strategies in relation to current recommendations for the management of older person delirium and makes recommendations for future research. Background: Delirium is a common syndrome in hospitalised older people and a difficult syndrome for health care staff to manage. During delirium, older people describe experiencing altered states of reality and use of orientation strategies as part of their care. Orientation, a non-pharmacological approach to the management of delirium, is recommended as a care strategy in evidence-based guidelines and protocols. Method: Discursive paper. Discussion: This paper considers published research into the experiences of hospitalised older people during an episode of delirium and questions the appropriateness of orientation strategies. How care strategies are experienced by older people is emphasised. An approach to care which is a flexible balance of reality orientation and validation therapy, synchronised with the changing reality and reactions of the older person, is identified as a care recommendation from research. Conclusion: When delirium is experienced during hospitalisation, health care staff have a responsibility to provide care that is person-centred and sensitive to the older person’s needs. It has been assumed that no harm comes from the use of orientation approaches, and delirium management guidelines have recommended this approach. However, orientation strategies can lead to mistrust of, and distancing from, health care staff and family, so impeding their relationships with carers. Care practices that consider the older person to be unique and that synchronise with the older person’s changing experiences of reality are suggested for further research. Relevance to clinical practice: Caring for an older person in delirium is challenging for health care staff. Reconsideration of, and research into, care strategies during delirium has the potential to improve the quality of care for hospitalised older people