Are gatekeepers to renal services referring patients equitably?

Objective: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) benefit from specialist interventions to retard progression of renal failure and prevent cardiovascular events. Certain patient groups have poor access to specialist renal services when dialysis is required. This study used a population-based laboratory database to investigate access to and timeliness of referral to renal specialists relatively early in the course of the disease.

Methods: All tests for serum creatinine and haemoglobin (Hb) A1c in Northern Ireland in a two-year period (2001 and 2002) were retrieved for 345,441 adults. Of these, 16,856 patients had at least one serum creatinine level above 150 µmol/L in 2001 not deemed to be due to acute renal failure (crude prevalence 1.42%). This cohort was followed until the end of 2002 and the differences in the time to referral to a specialist were assessed using Cox's proportional hazards regression.

Results: Diabetic patients, older patients and those living in deprived areas were significantly more likely to have serum creatinine testing, compared with non-diabetic, younger and those living in more affluent areas. Delays in referral to renal specialists for patients with raised serum creatinine levels were significantly shorter among diabetic patients, women, younger individuals, those living in rural areas, those living close to renal centres and those living in deprived areas. Overall, only 19% of diabetic patients and 6% of non-diabetic patients who had CKD had seen a renal specialist within 12 months of their index creatinine test.

Conclusion: Contrary to other diseases, disadvantaged patients do not seem to be under-investigated for renal disease compared with their more affluent neighbours and are generally referred earlier for specialist assessment. However, the absolute rate of timely specialist assessment is low. Recent changes in referral criteria for CKD will result in more referrals and will have serious resource implications. Opportunities for health gain among patients with declining renal function are being missed, particularly among the old and those living furthest from specialist centres.

An international review of the patterns and determinants of health service utilisation by adult cancer survivors

Background: There is a need to review factors related to health service utilisation by the increasing number of cancer survivors in order to inform care planning and the organisation and delivery of services.

Methods: Studies were identified via systematic searches of Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index and the SEER-MEDICARE library. Methodological quality was assessed using STROBE; and the Andersen Behavioural Model was used as a framework to structure, organise and analyse the results of the review.

Results: Younger, white cancer survivors were most likely to receive follow-up screening, preventive care, visit their physician, utilise professional mental health services and least likely to be hospitalised. Utilisation rates of other health professionals such as physiotherapists were low. Only studies of health service use conducted in the USA investigated the role of type of health insurance and ethnicity. There appeared to be disparate service use among US samples in terms of ethnicity and socio-demographic status, regardless of type of health insurance provisions- this may be explained by underlying differences in health-seeking behaviours. Overall, use of follow-up care appeared to be lower than expected and barriers existed for particular groups of cancer survivors.

Conclusions: Studies focussed on the use of a specific type of service rather than adopting a whole-system approach and future health services research should address this shortcoming. Overall, there is a need to improve access to care for all cancer survivors. Studies were predominantly US-based focussing mainly on breast or colorectal cancer. Thus, the generalisability of findings to other health-care systems and cancer sites is unclear. The Andersen Behavioural Model provided an appropriate framework for studying and understanding health service use among cancer survivors. The active involvement of physicians and use of personalised care plans are required in order to ensure that post-treatment needs and recommendations for care are met.

An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.