Guideline-discordant care in acute myocardial infarction: predictors and outcomes

Objectives: To determine (i) factors which predict whether patients hospitalised with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) receive care discordant with recommendations of clinical practice guidelines; and (ii) whether such discordant care results in worse outcomes compared with receiving guideline-concordant care. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Two community general hospitals. Participants: 607 consecutive patients admitted with AMI between July 1997 and December 2000. Main outcome measures: Clinical predictors of discordant care; crude and risk-adjusted rates of inhospital mortality and reinfarction, and mean length of hospital stay. Results: At least one treatment recommendation for AMI was applicable for 602 of the 607 patients. Of these patients, 411(68%) received concordant care, and 191 (32%) discordant care. Positive predictors at presentation of discordant care were age > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% Cl, 1.7-3.6), silent infarction (OR, 2.7; 95% Cl, 1.6-4.6), anterior infarction (OR, 2.5; 95% Cl, 1.7-3.8), a history of heart failure (OR, 6.3; 95% Cl, 3.7-10.7), chronic atrial fibrillation (OR, 3.2; 95% Cl, 1.5-6.4); and heart rate greater than or equal to 100 beats/min (OR, 2.1; 95% Cl, 1.4-3.1). Death occurred in 12.0% (23/191) of discordant-care patients versus 4.6% (19/411) of concordant-care patients (adjusted OR, 2.42; 95% Cl, 1.22-4.82). Mortality was inversely related to the level of guideline concordance (P = 0.03). Reinfarction rates also tended to be higher in the discordant-care group (4.2% v 1.7%; adjusted OR, 2.5; 95% Cl, 0.90-7.1). Conclusions: Certain clinical features at presentation predict a higher likelihood of guideline-discordant care in patients presenting with AMI Such care appears to increase the risk of inhospital death.

Barriers to effective cancer pain management: A survey of hospitalized cancer patients in Australia

The purpose of this study was to examine attitudinal barriers to effective pain management in a consecutively recruited cohort of 114 cancer patients from four Australian hospitals. When surveyed, 48% of this sample reported experiencing pain within the previous 24 hours. Of these, 56% reported this pain to be distressing, horrible or excruciating, with large proportions indicating that this pain had affected their movement, sleep and emotional well-being. Three factors were identified as potentially impacting on patients responses to pain-poor levels of patient knowledge about pain, low perceived control over pain, and a deficit in communication about pain. A trend for older patients to experience more severe pain was also identified. These older patients reported being more willing to tolerate pain and perceive less control over their pain. Suggestions are made for developing patient education programs and farther research using concepts drawn from broader social and behavioral models. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002:23:393-405. (C) U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee, 2002.

Quality of care of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes

Background: Measurement and improvement of quality of care is a priority issue in health care. Patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitute a high-risk population whose care, if shown to be suboptimal on the basis of available research evidence, may benefit from quality improvement interventions. Aim: To evaluate the quality of in-hospital care for patients with ACS, using explicit quality indicators. Methods: Retrospective case note review was undertaken of 397 patients admitted to three teaching hospitals in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, between 1 October 2000 and 17 April 2001. The main out-come measures were 12 process-of-care quality indicators, calculated as either: (i) the proportion of all patients who received specific interventions or (ii) the proportion of ideal patients who received -specific interventions (i.e. patients with clear indi-cations and lacking contraindications). Results: Quality indicators with values above 80% included: (i) patient selection for thrombolysis (100%) and discharge prescription of beta-blockers (84%), (ii) antiplatelet agents (94%) and (iii) lipid-lowering agents (82%). Indicators with values between 50% and 80% included: (i) timely per-formance of electrocardiogram (ECG) on admission (61%), (ii) early coronary angiography (75%), (iii) measurement of serum lipids (71%) and (iv) discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (73%). Indicators with values <50% included: (i) timely administration of thrombolysis (35%), (ii) non-invasive risk assessment (23%) and (ii) formal in-hospital and post-hospital cardiac rehabilitation (47% and 7%, respectively). Conclusion: There were delays in performing ECG and administering thrombolysis to patients who presented to emergency departments with ACS. Improvement is warranted in use of non-invasive procedures for identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from coronary revascularization as well as use of serum lipid measurements, ACE inhibitors and cardiac rehabilitation.

Behaviour of older people admitted for residential respite care

The aim of this pilot study was to determine whether residential respite care is used because of disruptive behaviour displayed by older people. The specific objectives were to 1) characterise older people being admitted for residential respite care, 2) obtain a preliminary estimate of the proportion of older people in residential respite care because of disruptive behaviour, and, 3) examine the relationship between residential respite care and disruptive behaviour. A quantitative approach using a cross-sectional survey was employed. The respite recipients were 35 older people with a mean age of 81.5 years (range 67-96 years). The respite recipients had been admitted for residential respite care to aged care hostels and nursing homes in a provincial city and its surrounding rural area. Nurses rated disruptive behaviour using the Dementia Behavior Disturbance Scale (DBDS). Additional reliability data for the DBDS are provided. The study found that the largest specific group of residential respite care users were widows (31.4%) who lived alone in their own home. The reason for over half (51.4%) of the residential respite admissions was to give a carer a 'break' from the older person. Although a large proportion (80%) of respite recipients were rated as having disruptive behaviour, the proportion of admissions because of disruptive behaviour was much less (28.6%). People with dementia (37.1%) scored significantly higher than people without dementia on the DBDS [F (1,33)=15.57, p

Outcome of stroke patients admitted to intensive care: Experience from an Australian teaching hospital

The objective of this study was to determine the mortality rate and the functional outcomes of stroke patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and to identify predictors of poor outcome in this population. The records of all patients admitted to the ICU with the diagnosis of stroke between January 1994 and December 1999 were reviewed. Patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage were excluded. Data were collected on clinical and biological variables, risk factors for stroke and the presence of comorbidities. Mortality (ICU, in-hospital and three-month) and functional outcome were used as end-points. In the six-year-period, 61 patients were admitted to the ICU with either haemorrhagic or ischaemic stroke. Medical records were available for only 58 patients. There were 23 ischaemic and 35 haemorrhagic strokes. The ICU, in-hospital and three-month mortality rates were 36%, 47% and 52% respectively. There were no significant differences in the prevalence of premorbid risk factors between survivors and non-survivors. The mean Barthel score was significantly different between the independent and dependent survivors (94 +/- 6 vs 45 +/- 26, P < 0.001). A substantial number of patients with good functional outcomes had lower Rankin scores (92% vs 11%, P < 0.001). Only 46% of those who were alive at three months were functionally independent. Intensive care admission was associated with a high mortality rate and a high likelihood of dependent lifestyle after hospital discharge. Haemorrhagic stroke, fixed dilated pupil(s) and GCS < 10 during assessment were associated with increased mortality and poor functional outcome.

An evaluation of tobacco brief intervention training in three Indigenous health care settings in north Queensland

Objective: To evaluate the pilot phase of a tobacco brief intervention program in three Indigenous health care settings in rural and remote north Queensland. Methods: A combination of in-depth interviews with health staff and managers and focus groups with health staff and consumers. Results: The tobacco brief intervention initiative resulted in changes in clinical practice among health care workers in all three sites. Although health workers had reported routinely raising the issue of smoking in a variety of settings prior to the intervention, the training provided them with an additional opportunity to become more aware of new approaches to smoking cessation. Indigenous health workers in particular reported that their own attempts to give up smoking following the training had given them confidence and empathy in offering smoking cessation advice. However, the study found no evidence that anybody had actually given up smoking at six months following the intervention. Integration of brief intervention into routine clinical practice was constrained by organisational, interpersonal and other factors in the broader socio-environmental context. Conclusions/implications: While modest health gains may be possible through brief intervention, the potential effectiveness in Indigenous settings will be limited in the absence of broader strategies aimed at tackling community-identified health priorities such as alcohol misuse, violence, employment and education. Tobacco and other forms of lifestyle brief. intervention need to be part of multi-level health strategies. Training in tobacco brief intervention should address both the Indigenous context and the needs of Indigenous health care workers.

How well do general practitioners deliver palliative care? A systematic review

General practitioners (GPs) deliver the majority of palliative care to patients in the last year of life. This article seeks to examine the nature of GP care, perceptions of the GPs themselves and others of that care, the adequacy of palliative care training, issues relating to accessibility of GPs to palliative care patients, and strategies that may be of use in encouraging more effective delivery of palliative care by GPs. Medline and PubMed databases from 1966 to 2000 were searched, and 135 references identified. Sixty-six of these described studies relevant to GP palliative care. GPs value this part of their work. Most of the time, patients appreciate the contribution the GP makes to palliative care particularly if the GP is accessible, takes time to listen, allows patient and carer to ventilate their feelings, and is seen to be making efforts made regarding symptom relief. However, reports from bereaved relatives suggest that palliative care is performed less well in the community than in other settings. GPs express discomfort about their competence to perform palliative care adequately. They tend to miss symptoms which are not treatable by them, or which are less common. However, with appropriate specialist support and facilities, GPs have been shown to deliver sound and effective care. GP comfort working with specialist teams increases with exposure to this form of patient management, as does the understanding of the potential other team members have in contributing to the care of the patient. Formal arrangements engaging GPs to work with specialist teams have been shown to improve functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, improve effective use of resources and improve effective physician behaviour in other areas of medicine. Efforts by specialist services to develop formal involvement of GPs in the care of individual patients, may be an effective method of improving GP palliative care skills and appreciation of the roles specialist services can play.