Promoting Clinical Engagement and Cross-sector Collaboration Through Changes in Workforce, Use of Technology, and Improved Business Systems

Published version made available here with permission from publisher.Background: Cross-sectoral collaboration across health care settings has the potential to deliver efficiencies as well as improve health care outcomes. There is a need for better understanding and awareness of models, mechanisms and strategies that enhance crosssectoral collaboration in Australia. Improved cross-sectoral collaboration is supported by a number of changes in workforce, use of technology and improved business systems. This review seeks to summarise these programs for those who may be seeking to engage in this area as a means of determining the range of options and possible proven benefits. Methodology: This study employs a mixed methods approach. A pragmatic literature review was undertaken to determine the relevant collaborative care models and review current programs Australia-wide that implement these models. Programs were selected from searching the grey and indexed medical literature as well as suggestions obtained from relevant stakeholders. Criteria for inclusion included having description in the peer reviewed and grey literature, ability to represent a unique model, extent of current use and description of outcomes of the intervention. Additional qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to elucidate more detailed information about technology, workforce and business systems. This information is summarised in the report and details about the individual programs are included as an appendix to this report. Results: Fifteen models were reviewed for this report. Qualitative semi-structured interview data were employed to supplement findings from the literature review. Key mechanisms of these models are described specifically focusing on the use of technology, workforce and business systems. Facilitators and barriers were identified and explored

Effects of antiplatelet therapy on stroke risk by brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases: subgroup analyses of the RESTART randomised, open-label trial

Background Findings from the RESTART trial suggest that starting antiplatelet therapy might reduce the risk of recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage compared with avoiding antiplatelet therapy. Brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases (such as cerebral microbleeds) are associated with greater risks of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. We did subgroup analyses of the RESTART trial to explore whether these brain imaging features modify the effects of antiplatelet therapy

Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (RESTART): a randomised, open-label trial

Background: Antiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events for people with occlusive vascular disease, although it might increase the risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Patients surviving the commonest subtype of intracranial haemorrhage, intracerebral haemorrhage, are at risk of both haemorrhagic and occlusive vascular events, but whether antiplatelet therapy can be used safely is unclear. We aimed to estimate the relative and absolute effects of antiplatelet therapy on recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage and whether this risk might exceed any reduction of occlusive vascular events. Methods: The REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART) was a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel-group trial at 122 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults (≥18 years) who were taking antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage, discontinued antithrombotic therapy, and survived for 24 h. Computerised randomisation incorporating minimisation allocated participants (1:1) to start or avoid antiplatelet therapy. We followed participants for the primary outcome (recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage) for up to 5 years. We analysed data from all randomised participants using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for minimisation covariates. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN71907627). Findings: Between May 22, 2013, and May 31, 2018, 537 participants were recruited a median of 76 days (IQR 29–146) after intracerebral haemorrhage onset: 268 were assigned to start and 269 (one withdrew) to avoid antiplatelet therapy. Participants were followed for a median of 2·0 years (IQR [1·0– 3·0]; completeness 99·3%). 12 (4%) of 268 participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had recurrence of intracerebral haemorrhage compared with 23 (9%) of 268 participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·25–1·03]; p=0·060). 18 (7%) participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy experienced major haemorrhagic events compared with 25 (9%) participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (0·71 [0·39–1·30]; p=0·27), and 39 [15%] participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had major occlusive vascular events compared with 38 [14%] allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (1·02 [0·65–1·60]; p=0·92). Interpretation: These results exclude all but a very modest increase in the risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage with antiplatelet therapy for patients on antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage. The risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage is probably too small to exceed the established benefits of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention

Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (RESTART): a randomised, open-label trial

Background: Antiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events for people with occlusive vascular disease, although it might increase the risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Patients surviving the commonest subtype of intracranial haemorrhage, intracerebral haemorrhage, are at risk of both haemorrhagic and occlusive vascular events, but whether antiplatelet therapy can be used safely is unclear. We aimed to estimate the relative and absolute effects of antiplatelet therapy on recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage and whether this risk might exceed any reduction of occlusive vascular events. Methods: The REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART) was a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel-group trial at 122 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults (≥18 years) who were taking antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage, discontinued antithrombotic therapy, and survived for 24 h. Computerised randomisation incorporating minimisation allocated participants (1:1) to start or avoid antiplatelet therapy. We followed participants for the primary outcome (recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage) for up to 5 years. We analysed data from all randomised participants using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for minimisation covariates. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN71907627). Findings: Between May 22, 2013, and May 31, 2018, 537 participants were recruited a median of 76 days (IQR 29–146) after intracerebral haemorrhage onset: 268 were assigned to start and 269 (one withdrew) to avoid antiplatelet therapy. Participants were followed for a median of 2·0 years (IQR [1·0– 3·0]; completeness 99·3%). 12 (4%) of 268 participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had recurrence of intracerebral haemorrhage compared with 23 (9%) of 268 participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·25–1·03]; p=0·060). 18 (7%) participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy experienced major haemorrhagic events compared with 25 (9%) participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (0·71 [0·39–1·30]; p=0·27), and 39 [15%] participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had major occlusive vascular events compared with 38 [14%] allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (1·02 [0·65–1·60]; p=0·92). Interpretation: These results exclude all but a very modest increase in the risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage with antiplatelet therapy for patients on antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage. The risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage is probably too small to exceed the established benefits of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention

Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (RESTART): a randomised, open-label trial

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events for people with occlusive vascular disease, although it might increase the risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Patients surviving the commonest subtype of intracranial haemorrhage, intracerebral haemorrhage, are at risk of both haemorrhagic and occlusive vascular events, but whether antiplatelet therapy can be used safely is unclear. We aimed to estimate the relative and absolute effects of antiplatelet therapy on recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage and whether this risk might exceed any reduction of occlusive vascular events. METHODS: The REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART) was a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel-group trial at 122 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults (≥18 years) who were taking antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage, discontinued antithrombotic therapy, and survived for 24 h. Computerised randomisation incorporating minimisation allocated participants (1:1) to start or avoid antiplatelet therapy. We followed participants for the primary outcome (recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage) for up to 5 years. We analysed data from all randomised participants using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for minimisation covariates. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN71907627). FINDINGS: Between May 22, 2013, and May 31, 2018, 537 participants were recruited a median of 76 days (IQR 29-146) after intracerebral haemorrhage onset: 268 were assigned to start and 269 (one withdrew) to avoid antiplatelet therapy. Participants were followed for a median of 2·0 years (IQR [1·0- 3·0]; completeness 99·3%). 12 (4%) of 268 participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had recurrence of intracerebral haemorrhage compared with 23 (9%) of 268 participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·25-1·03]; p=0·060). 18 (7%) participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy experienced major haemorrhagic events compared with 25 (9%) participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (0·71 [0·39-1·30]; p=0·27), and 39 [15%] participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had major occlusive vascular events compared with 38 [14%] allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (1·02 [0·65-1·60]; p=0·92). INTERPRETATION: These results exclude all but a very modest increase in the risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage with antiplatelet therapy for patients on antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage. The risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage is probably too small to exceed the established benefits of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation

An exploration of the prevalence, diagnosis and treatment of depression in patients with multiple chronic conditions.

Introduction: The likelihood of developing two or more chronic illnesses (‘multimorbidity’) increases with age. Depression is common with chronic physical illness, but may not be detected or treated in multimorbid patients. This thesis is comprised of a series of related studies designed to explore the prevalence, diagnosis and management of depression in patients with multiple chronic conditions using an explanatory mixed methods design. Data and participants were sourced from a multidisciplinary outpatient clinic in metropolitan Adelaide. Study One: Clinic Database Analysis. The study estimated the prevalence of a) depression diagnoses and b) depressive symptoms using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) in an outpatient clinic population, exploring agreement between clinician diagnoses of depression and GDS scores. Doctor-diagnosed depression was recorded for 15% of patients. Based on GDS scores, 50% of patients reported threshold-level depression symptoms, although many had no corresponding depression diagnosis. This suggests that whilst many multimorbid patients experience depressive symptoms, these may not be detected. Study Two: Comparing the GDS, HADS and CIDI. Study Two compared GDS scores with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores and Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) diagnoses. The GDS identified more depression-positive cases than the HADS and the CIDI, but the CIDI failed to detect severe depressive symptoms in several patients. During the study, concerns arose relating to the use of the CIDI with older multimorbid patients; consequently, the study was terminated early. Study Three: Patient Symptom Priority Scale. The Patient Symptom Priority Scale was developed to explore patient perceptions of symptom burden and functional impact, and piloted in the clinic. Patients described more physical symptoms than emotional symptoms. Age correlated positively with chronic illness and physical symptom counts, and negatively with psychological symptom impact. Geriatric Depression Scale scores correlated with all psychological variables. Study Four: GP experiences of depression diagnosis and management with multimorbid patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs who had referred patients to the clinic, to explore GP perceptions of depression diagnosis and treatment with multimorbid patients and generate a grounded theory model reflecting the role of multimorbidity in their practice. Multimorbidity generated increased time to determine symptom causation and build relationship with the patient. GPs offered medical and social depression interventions. Study Five: Experiences of depression diagnosis and treatment amongst multimorbid patients. To explore the patient perspective, further qualitative interviews were undertaken with multimorbid clinic patients who had been diagnosed with depression. Thematic analysis revealed common diagnosis and treatment experiences amongst these multimorbid patients with depression. All patients attributed depression onset to the loss of their normal life, with stigma emerging as an underlying influence in patient decisions about treatment. Conclusion: This is the first study to compare depression symptoms with depression diagnoses in a multimorbid population, and found that many patients experience threshold-level depression symptoms that are not being addressed. General practitioners are aware of contextual factors, and try to address them, but also make assumptions about their patients that may not be accurate. This may account for the number of patients still suffering. The findings suggest that a thorough symptom profile is necessary for effective detection and treatment of depression in this vulnerable population.Thesis (Ph.D) -- University of Adelaide, School of Medicine, 201