Factors associated with length of stay and the risk of readmission in an acute psychiatric inpatient facility: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE: This study was to investigate factors influencing the length of stay and predictors for the risk of readmission at an acute psychiatric inpatient unit. METHOD: Two comparative studies were embedded in a retrospective cross-sectional clinical file audit. A randomly selected 226 episodes of admissions including 178 patients during a twelve-month period were reviewed. A total of 286 variables were collected and analysed. A case control study was employed in the study of length of stay. A retrospective cohort study was used to investigate the predictors for the risk of readmission. RESULTS: Logistic regression analyses showed that 10 variables were associated with length of stay. Seclusion during the index admission, accommodation problems and living in an area lacking community services predicted longer stay. During the follow-up period 82 patients (46%) were readmitted. Cox regression analyses showed 9 variables were related to the risk of readmission. Six of these variables increased the risk of readmission, including history of previous frequent admission, risk to others at the time of the index admission and alcohol intoxication. More active and assertive treatment in the community post-discharge decreased the risk of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Length of stay is multifactorially determined. Behavioural manifestations of illness and lack of social support structures predicted prolonged length of stay. Good clinical practice did not necessarily translate to a shorter length of stay. Therefore, length of stay is predictable, but not readily modifiable within the clinical domain. Good clinical practice within the community following discharge likely reduces the risk of readmission. Quality of inpatient care does not influence the risk of readmission, which therefore raises a question about the validity of using the rate of readmission as an outcome measure of psychiatric inpatient care

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of issuing longer versus shorter duration (3-month vs. 28-day) prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions: systematic review and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with < 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios. REVIEW METHODS: In the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available. RESULTS: An exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years. LIMITATIONS: The available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only; it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Comment letters to the National Commission on Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting, 1987 (Treadway Commission) Vol. 1

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sop/1661/thumbnail.jp

What's law got to do with it Part 2: Legal strategies for healthier nutrition and obesity prevention

This article is the second in a two-part review of law's possible role in a regulatory approach to healthier nutrition and obesity prevention in Australia. As discussed in Part 1, law can intervene in support of obesity prevention at a variety of levels: by engaging with the health care system, by targeting individual behaviours, and by seeking to influence the broader, socio-economic and environmental factors that influence patterns of behaviour across the population. Part 1 argued that the most important opportunities for law lie in seeking to enhance the effectiveness of a population health approach

Your choices for the future A survey of GP opinion; UK report

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:q93/01221(Your) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

General practice budget holding A commentary from the General Medical Services Committee on the Government's prospectus, Funding General Practice

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:q94/13228 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Core services Taking the initiative

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:m01/18067 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo