Systematic review of trends in emergency department attendances : an Australian perspective

Emergency departments (EDs) in many developed countries are experiencing increasing pressure due to rising numbers of patient presentations and emergency admissions. Reported increases range up to 7% annually. Together with limited inpatient bed capacity, this contributes to prolonged lengths of stay in the ED; disrupting timely access to urgent care, posing a threat to patient safety. The aim of this review is to summarise the findings of studies that have investigated the extent of and the reasons for increasing emergency presentations. To do this, a systematic review and synthesis of published and unpublished reports describing trends and underlying drivers associated with the increase in ED presentations in developed countries was conducted. Most published studies provided evidence of increasing ED attendances within developed countries. A series of inter-related factors have been proposed to explain the increase in emergency demand. These include changes in demography and in the organisation and delivery of healthcare services, as well as improved health awareness and community expectations arising from health promotion campaigns. The factors associated with increasing ED presentations are complex and inter-related and include rising community expectations regarding access to emergency care in acute hospitals. A systematic investigation of the demographic, socioeconomic and health-related factors highlighted by this review is recommended. This would facilitate untangling the dynamics of the increase in emergency demand

RESPOND – A patient-centred programme to prevent secondary falls in older people presenting to the emergency department with a fall: Protocol for a mixed methods programme evaluation.

Background Programme evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have potential to enhance understanding of trial outcomes. This paper describes a multi-level programme evaluation to be conducted alongside an RCT of a falls prevention programme (RESPOND). Objectives 1) To conduct a process evaluation in order to identify the degree of implementation fidelity and associated barriers and facilitators. 2) To evaluate the primary intended impact of the programme: participation in fall prevention strategies, and the factors influencing participation. 3) To identify the factors influencing RESPOND RCT outcomes: falls, fall injuries and ED re-presentations. Methods/ Design Five hundred and twenty eight community-dwelling adults aged 60–90 years presenting to two EDs with a fall will be recruited and randomly assigned to the intervention or standard care group. All RESPOND participants and RESPOND clinicians will be included in the evaluation. A mixed methods design will be used and a programme logic model will frame the evaluation. Data will be sourced from interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, clinician case notes, recruitment records, participant-completed calendars, hospital administrative datasets, and audio-recordings of intervention contacts. Quantitative data will be analysed via descriptive and inferential statistics and qualitative data will be interpreted using thematic analysis. Discussion The RESPOND programme evaluation will provide information about contextual and influencing factors related to the RCT outcomes. The results will assist researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to make decisions about future falls prevention interventions. Insights gained are likely to be transferable to preventive health programmes for a range of chronic conditions

REDIRECT: reducing older patients' avoidable presentations for emergency care treatment

The project brings together researchers, primary and acute care service providers, and consumers with the primary aim of identifying strategies to reduce avoidable presentations of older patients to Emergency Departments (ED) by redirecting them to primary and community health services. The objectives are to: 1. Understand the journey of older patients who present to ED unnecessarily by analysing four datasets, which include data from regional and national levels, to identify the clinical, social, and health system-related risk factors for ED attendance and re-attendance 2. Identify the appropriate strategies for preventing older patient re-entry from primary health care to sub-acute or acute care 3. Establish the applicability of the proposed interventions at a regional level and the generalisability and feasibility of their implementation in other settings Synopsis Caring for an ageing population raises significant challenges to the health care system, including emergency care. Medicare Locals are charged with the task of reducing avoidable emergency department (ED) attendance partly by improving access to after-hours care. Research shows that increasing numbers of older patients (over 70 years) are attending ED, many over four times per year. To reduce avoidable presentations, we need to improve the options for managing the health care demand of this older age group in primary care and community settings. Accordingly, the project aims to: 1. Better understand the journey of older patients who present to ED unnecessarily and re-enter from primary health care to sub-acute or acute care by analysing four highly relevant datasets: MAGNET (Melbourne East Monash General Practice Database) MMDS (Melbourne Medical Deputising Services) dataset VEMD (Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset) DYNOPTA (Dynamic Analyses to Optimise Ageing) dataset 2. Determine the appropriate strategies for preventing patient re-entry from primary health care to sub-acute or acute care by conducting a rapid review methodology. 3. Synthesise the above findings and propose alternative care models. Interviews and focus groups will be conducted with key stakeholders and older consumers and their carers to determine the applicability of these models at a local level and the generalisability of our findings to other settings.The research reported in this paper is a project of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute which is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development Strategy

Transition to Adulthood Pathway Programme Evaluation: First interim report

This report presents research findings focussed on the development, set-up and early implementation of the Transition to Adulthood Pathway Programme, examining the effectiveness of the processes and partnership arrangements used to deliver the approach within each project site

“Connect Local”: protocol for the evaluation of a codesigned whole of community approach to promote social connection in older adults

BackgroundThere is wide acknowledgement in the literature that social connection is protective against loneliness and depression. More robust research, however, is needed to evaluate interventions that promote social connection. This protocol paper outlines the evaluation of a community-wide social connection program, Connect Local, in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia to support people 65 years and older to increase access to local community services/activities; and to ascertain impact on social connection, loneliness, depressive symptoms, physical and mental wellbeing, and use of health services.MethodsA Type 1 Hybrid design, including program effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation evaluation of the Connect Local program, will be undertaken. Eighty-eight participants aged ≥65 years with one or more chronic health condition, who are also either experiencing or at risk of loneliness, social isolation and depressive symptoms will be invited to participate in the evaluation. Outcomes, measured at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months, include loneliness, social isolation, depressive symptoms, social anxiety, goal attainment, wellbeing, quality of life and health care utilisation. A gender and age matched comparator group of 88 individuals will be recruited from outside the intervention local government area. Impact of the intervention on community service providers in the target region will be evaluated using mixed methods, where triangulation will be used to combine the qualitative and quantitative data using a deductive-simultaneous design. Changes in wellbeing and quality of life of community volunteers will also be measured. All groups will be interviewed to ascertain their experience and perceptions of the program. The economic evaluation will use a Social Return on Investment (SROI) approach, to include outcomes at the individual, community, and system levels. Implementation outcomes will consider Reach, Adoption, Feasibility, Acceptability, Appropriateness, Fidelity, and Sustainability of the intervention.DiscussionThis study will provide a better understanding of the impacts of a community-wide social connection approach in older adults, the community and broader system.Clinical trial registrationhttps://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385192; Identifier ACTRN12623000968673

RESPOND – A patient-centred program to prevent secondary falls in older people presenting to the emergency department with a fall: Protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Introduction: Participation in falls prevention activities by older people following presentation to the Emergency Department (ED) with a fall is suboptimal. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will test the RESPOND program which is designed to improve older persons’ participation in falls prevention activities through delivery of patient-centred education and behaviour change strategies. Design and setting: An RCT at two tertiary referral EDs in Melbourne and Perth, Australia. Participants: Five-hundred and twenty eight community-dwelling people aged 60-90 years presenting to the ED with a fall and discharged home will be recruited. People who: require an interpreter or hands-on assistance to walk; live in residential aged care or >50 kilometres from the trial hospital; have terminal illness, cognitive impairment, documented aggressive behaviour or history of psychosis; are receiving palliative care; or are unable to use a telephone will be excluded. Methods: Participants will be randomly allocated to the RESPOND intervention or standard care control group. RESPOND incorporates: (1) home-based risk factor assessment; (2) education, coaching, goal setting, and follow-up telephone support for management of one or more of four risk factors with evidence of effective intervention; and (3) healthcare provider communication and community linkage delivered over six months. Primary outcomes are falls and fall injuries per-person-year. Discussion: RESPOND builds on prior falls prevention learnings and aims to help individuals make guided decisions about how they will manage their falls risk. Patient-centred models have been successfully trialled in chronic and cardiovascular disease however evidence to support this approach in falls prevention is limited. Trial registration. The protocol for this study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000336684)

Multifactorial falls prevention programmes for older adults presenting to the Emergency Department with a fall: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Falls are a leading cause of emergency department (ED) presentations in older adults. Objective: To determine whether multifactorial falls prevention interventions are effective in preventing falls, fall injuries, ED re-presentations and hospital admissions in older adults presenting to the ED with a fall. Design: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised control trials (RCTs). Methods: Four health-related electronic databases were searched (inception to June 2018) with two independent reviewers determining inclusion, assessing study quality and undertaking data extraction. Study selection: RCTs of multifactorial falls prevention interventions targeting community dwelling older adults (≥ 60 years) presenting to the ED with a fall and providing quantitative data on at least one of the review outcomes. Results: Twelve studies involving 3,986 participants, from six countries, were eligible for inclusion. Studies were of variable methodological quality. The multifactorial interventions were heterogeneous, though the majority included components such as education, referral to relevant healthcare services, home modifications, exercise, and medication changes. Meta-analyses demonstrated a non-significant reduction in falls (rate ratio=0.78; 95% CI 0.58, 1.05) with multi-factorial falls prevention programs. Multi-factorial interventions did not significantly affect the number of fallers (risk ratio=1.02; 95% CI 0.88, 1.18), rate of fractured neck of femur (risk ratio=0.82; 95% CI 0.53, 1.25), fall-related ED presentations (rate ratio=0.99; 95% CI 0.84, 1.16), or hospitalisations (rate ratio=1.14; 95% CI 0.69, 1.89). Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of multifactorial falls interventions to prevent falls or hospital utilisation in older people presenting to ED following a fall. Further research targeting this population group is required

Investigating the uptake, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines : protocol for an observational study using linked UK national data

Funding: This research is part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (HDRUK2020.146). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_19075) and supported by the Scottish Government. This work is supported by BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004). BREATHE is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. ConCOV is supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/V028367/1); Health Data Research UK (HDR-9006) which receives its funding from the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation (BHF) and the Wellcome Trust; and Administrative Data Research UK which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant ES/S007393/1).Introduction : The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which emerged in December 2019, has caused millions of deaths and severe illness worldwide. Numerous vaccines are currently under development of which a few have now been authorised for population-level administration by several countries. As of 20 September 2021, over 48 million people have received their first vaccine dose and over 44 million people have received their second vaccine dose across the UK. We aim to assess the uptake rates, effectiveness, and safety of all currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the UK. Methods and analysis : We will use prospective cohort study designs to assess vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety against clinical outcomes and deaths. Test-negative case–control study design will be used to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Self-controlled case series and retrospective cohort study designs will be carried out to assess vaccine safety against mild-to-moderate and severe adverse events, respectively. Individual-level pseudonymised data from primary care, secondary care, laboratory test and death records will be linked and analysed in secure research environments in each UK nation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models will be carried out to estimate vaccine uptake levels in relation to various population characteristics. VE estimates against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection will be generated using a generalised additive logistic model. Time-dependent Cox models will be used to estimate the VE against clinical outcomes and deaths. The safety of the vaccines will be assessed using logistic regression models with an offset for the length of the risk period. Where possible, data will be meta-analysed across the UK nations. Ethics and dissemination : We obtained approvals from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02 (12/SS/0201), the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage independent Information Governance Review Panel project number 0911. Concerning English data, University of Oxford is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation and the National Health Service (NHS) Digital Data Security and Protection Policy. This is an approved study (Integrated Research Application ID 301740, Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee 21/HRA/2786). The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub meets NHS Digital’s Data Security and Protection Toolkit requirements. In Northern Ireland, the project was approved by the Honest Broker Governance Board, project number 0064. Findings will be made available to national policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Evaluation of RESPOND, a patient-centred program to prevent falls in older people presenting to the Emergency Department with a fall: A randomised controlled trial.

Background: Falls are a leading reason for older people presenting to the emergency department (ED). Many experience further falls. Little evidence exists to guide secondary prevention in this population. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigated whether a 6-month telephone-based patient-centred program—RESPOND—had an effect on falls and fall injuries in older people presenting to the ED after a fall. Methods and findings: Community dwelling people aged 60-90 years presenting to the ED with a fall and planned for discharge home within 72 hours, were recruited from two EDs in Australia. Participants were enrolled if they could walk without hands-on assistance, use a telephone, and were free of cognitive impairment (MMSE>23). Recruitment occurred between 1st April 2014―29th June 2015. Participants were randomised to receive either RESPOND (intervention) or usual care (control). RESPOND comprised: (1 home-based risk assessment; (2) six months telephone-based education, coaching, goal setting and support for evidence-based risk factor management; and (3) linkages to existing services. Primary outcomes were falls and fall injuries in the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included ED presentations, hospital admissions, fractures, death, falls risk, falls efficacy and quality of life. Assessors blind to group allocation collected outcome data via postal calendars, telephone follow-up, and hospital records. There were 430 people in the primary outcome analysis—217 randomised to RESPOND and 213 to control. Mean age of participants was 73 years, 55% were female. Falls per person-year were 1.15 in the RESPOND group and 1.83 in the control (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.65 [95% CI 0.43 to 0.99]; p=0.042). There was no significant difference in fall injuries (IRR 0.81 [0.51 to 1.29]; p=0.374). The rate of fractures was significantly lower in the RESPOND group compared to the control (0.05 vs. 0.12; IRR 0.37 [95% CI 0.15 to 0.91]; p=0.03) but there was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes between groups: ED presentations, hospitalisations or falls risk, falls efficacy and quality of life. There were two deaths in the RESPOND group and one in the control. No adverse events or unintended harm were reported. Limitations of this study were the high number of drop outs (n=93), over or under reporting of falls, fall injuries and hospitalisations across both groups and the relatively small number of fracture events. Conclusions: In this study, providing a telephone-based, patient-centred falls prevention program reduced falls and fractures, but not fall injuries, in older people presenting to the ED with a fall. Adopting patient-centred strategies into routine clinical practice for falls prevention could offer an opportunity to improve outcomes and reduce falls in patients attending ED