Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
ItemResuscitation status and characteristics and outcomes of patients transferred from subacute care to acute care hospitals: A multi-site prospective cohort study.Street, M ; Dunning, T ; Bucknall, T ; Hutchinson, AM ; Rawson, H ; Hutchinson, AF ; Botti, M ; Duke, MM ; Mohebbi, M ; Considine, J (Wiley, 2020-04)AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between resuscitation status and (i) patient characteristics; (ii) transfer characteristics; and (iii) patient outcomes following an emergency inter-hospital transfer from a subacute to an acute care hospital. BACKGROUND: Patients who experience emergency inter-hospital transfers from subacute to acute care hospitals have high rates of acute care readmission (81%) and in-hospital mortality (15%). DESIGN: This prospective, exploratory cohort study was a subanalysis of data from a larger case-time-control study in five Health Services in Victoria, Australia. There were 603 transfers in 557 patients between August 2015 and October 2016. The study was conducted in accordance with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology guidelines. METHODS: Data were extracted by medical record audit. Three resuscitation categories (full resuscitation; limitation of medical treatment (LOMT) orders; or not-for-cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) orders) were compared using chi-square or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Stratified multivariable proportional hazard Cox regression models were used to account for health service clustering effect. FINDINGS: Resuscitation status was 63.5% full resuscitation; 23.1% LOMT order; and 13.4% not-for-CPR. Compared to patients for full resuscitation, patients with not-for-CPR or LOMT orders were more likely to have rapid response team calls during acute care readmission or to die during hospitalisation. Patients who were not-for-CPR were less likely to be readmitted to acute care and more likely to return to subacute care. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients in subacute care who experienced an emergency inter-hospital transfer were for full resuscitation. Although the proportion of patients with LOMT and not-for-CPR orders increased after transfer, there were deficiencies in the documentation of resuscitation status and planning for clinical deterioration for subacute care patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: As many subacute care patients experience clinical deterioration, patient preferences for care need to be discussed and documented early in the subacute care admission.
ItemSix-year trends in postoperative prescribing and use of multimodal analgesics following total hip and knee arthroplasty: A single-site observational study of pain managementKhaw, D ; Bucknall, T ; Considine, J ; Duke, M ; Hutchinson, A ; Redley, B ; de Steiger, R ; Botti, M (WILEY, 2021-01)Background Guidelines for acute postoperative pain management recommend administering analgesics in multimodal combination to facilitate synergistic benefit, reduce opioid requirements and decrease side‐effects. However, limited observational research has examined the extent to which multimodal analgesics are prescribed and administered postoperatively following joint replacement. Methods In this longitudinal study, we used three‐point prevalence surveys to observe the 6‐year trends in prescribing and use of multimodal analgesics on the orthopaedic wards of a single Australian private hospital. We collected baseline postoperative data from total hip and knee arthroplasty patients in May/June 2010 (Time 1, n = 86), and follow‐up data at 1 year (Time 2, n = 199) and 5 years (Time 3, n = 188). During the follow‐up, data on prescribing practices were presented to anaesthetists. Results We found a statistically significant increase in the prescribing (p < 0.001) and use (p < 0.001) of multimodal analgesics over time. The use of multimodal analgesics was associated with lower rest pain (p = 0.027) and clinically significant reduction in interference with activities (p < 0.001) and sleep (p < 0.001). However, dynamic pain was high and rescue opioids were likely under‐administered at all time points. Furthermore, while patients reported high levels of side‐effects, use of adjuvant medications was low. Conclusions We observed significant practice change in inpatient analgesic prescribing in favour of multimodal analgesia, in keeping with contemporary recommendations. Surveys, however, appeared to identify a clinical gap in the bedside assessment and management of breakthrough pain and medication side‐effects, requiring additional targeted interventions. Significance Evaluation of 6‐year trends in a large Australian metropolitan private hospital indicated substantial growth in postoperative multimodal analgesic prescribing. In the context of growing global awareness concerning multimodal analgesia, findings suggested diffusion of best‐evidence prescribing into clinical practice. Findings indicated the effects of postoperative multimodal analgesia in real‐world conditions outside of experimental trials. Postoperative multimodal analgesia in the clinical setting was only associated with a modest reduction in rest pain, but substantially reduced interference from pain on activities and sleep.