Dataset Information

Postoperative critical care and high-acuity care provision in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Decisions to admit high-risk postoperative patients to critical care may be affected by resource availability. We aimed to quantify adult ICU/high-dependency unit (ICU/HDU) capacity in hospitals from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand (NZ), and to identify and describe additional 'high-acuity' beds capable of managing high-risk patients outside the ICU/HDU environment. METHODS:We used a modified Delphi consensus method to design a survey that was disseminated via investigator networks in the UK, Australia, and NZ. Hospital- and ward-level data were collected, including bed numbers, tertiary services offered, presence of an emergency department, ward staffing levels, and the availability of critical care facilities. RESULTS:We received responses from 257 UK (response rate: 97.7%), 35 Australian (response rate: 32.7%), and 17 NZ (response rate: 94.4%) hospitals (total 309). Of these hospitals, 91.6% reported on-site ICU or HDU facilities. UK hospitals reported fewer critical care beds per 100 hospital beds (median=2.7) compared with Australia (median=3.7) and NZ (median=3.5). Additionally, 31.1% of hospitals reported having high-acuity beds to which high-risk patients were admitted for postoperative management, in addition to standard ICU/HDU facilities. The estimated numbers of critical care beds per 100 000 population were 9.3, 14.1, and 9.1 in the UK, Australia, and NZ, respectively. The estimated per capita high-acuity bed capacities per 100 000 population were 1.2, 3.8, and 6.4 in the UK, Australia, and NZ, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Postoperative critical care resources differ in the UK, Australia, and NZ. High-acuity beds may have developed to augment the capacity to deliver postoperative critical care.

SUBMITTER: Wong DJN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6435907 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Postoperative critical care and high-acuity care provision in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

Wong Danny Jon Nian DJN Popham Scott S Wilson Andrew Marshall AM Barneto Lisa M LM Lindsay Helen A HA Farmer Laura L Saunders David D Wallace Sophie S Campbell Douglas D Myles Paul S PS Harris Steve Kendrick SK Moonesinghe Suneetha Ramani SR

British journal of anaesthesia 20190208 4

<h4>Background</h4>Decisions to admit high-risk postoperative patients to critical care may be affected by resource availability. We aimed to quantify adult ICU/high-dependency unit (ICU/HDU) capacity in hospitals from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand (NZ), and to identify and describe additional 'high-acuity' beds capable of managing high-risk patients outside the ICU/HDU environment.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a modified Delphi consensus method to design a survey that was disseminated via invest ...[more]

PMID: 30857602

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:People living in rural and remote communities commonly experience significant health disadvantages. Geographical barriers and reduced specialist and generalist services impact access to care when compared with metropolitan context. Innovative models of care have been developed for people living with chronic diseases in rural areas with the goal of overcoming these inequities. The aim of this paper was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of studies investigating innovative models of care for people living with chronic disease in rural areas of developed countries where a metropolitan comparator was included. METHODS:An integrative systematic review was undertaken. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to understand the empirical and theoretical data on clinical outcomes for people living with chronic disease in rural compared with metropolitan contexts and their models of care in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. RESULTS:Literature searching revealed 620 articles published in English between 1st January 2000 and 31st March 2019. One hundred sixty were included in the review including 68 from the United States, 59 from Australia and New Zealand (5), 21 from Canada and 11 from the United Kingdom and Ireland. 53% (84) focused on cardiovascular disease; 27% (43) diabetes mellitus; 8% (12) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and 13% (27) chronic kidney disease. Mortality was only reported in 10% (16) of studies and only 18% (29) reported data on Indigenous populations. CONCLUSIONS:This integrated review reveals that the published literature on common chronic health issues pertaining to rural and remote populations is largely descriptive. Only a small number of publications focus on mortality and comparative health outcomes from health care models in both urban and non-urban populations. Innovative service models and telehealth are together well represented in the published literature but data on health outcomes is relatively sparse. There is significant scope for further directly comparative studies detailing the effect of service delivery models on the health outcomes of urban and rural populations. We believe that such data would further knowledge in this field and help to break the deadly synergy between increased rurality and poorer outcomes for people with chronic disease.

Project description:BackgroundMobile clinics have been used to deliver primary health care to populations that otherwise experience difficulty in accessing services. Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States experience greater health inequities than non-Indigenous populations. There is increasing support for Indigenous-governed and culturally accessible primary health care services which meet the needs of Indigenous populations. There is some support for primary health care mobile clinics implemented specifically for Indigenous populations to improve health service accessibility. The purpose of this review is to scope the literature for evidence of mobile primary health care clinics implemented specifically for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.MethodsThis review was undertaken using the Joanna Brigg Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. Review objectives, inclusion criteria and methods were specified in advance and documented in a published protocol. The search included five academic databases and an extensive search of the grey literature.ResultsThe search resulted in 1350 unique citations, with 91 of these citations retrieved from the grey literature and targeted organisational websites. Title, abstract and full-text screening was conducted independently by two reviewers, with 123 citations undergoing full text review. Of these, 39 citations discussing 25 mobile clinics, met the inclusion criteria. An additional 14 citations were snowballed from a review of the reference lists of included citations. Of these 25 mobile clinics, the majority were implemented in Australia (n = 14), followed by United States (n = 6) and Canada (n = 5). No primary health mobile clinics specifically for Indigenous people in New Zealand were retrieved. There was a pattern of declining locations serviced by mobile clinics with an increasing population. Furthermore, only 13 mobile clinics had some form of evaluation.ConclusionsThis review identifies geographical gaps in the implementation of primary health care mobile clinics for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. There is a paucity of evaluations supporting the use of mobile clinics for Indigenous populations and a need for organisations implementing mobile clinics specifically for Indigenous populations to share their experiences. Engaging with the perspectives of Indigenous people accessing mobile clinic services is imperative to future evaluations.RegistrationThe protocol for this review has been peer-reviewed and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis (doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00057).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Indigenous peoples in developed countries have reduced life expectancies, particularly from chronic diseases. The lack of access to and take up of palliative care services of Indigenous peoples is an ongoing concern. OBJECTIVES:To examine and learn from published studies on provision of culturally safe palliative care service delivery to Indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Canada and the United States of America (USA); and to compare Indigenous peoples' preferences, needs, opportunities and barriers to palliative care. METHODS:A comprehensive search of multiple databases was undertaken. Articles were included if they were published in English from 2000 onwards and related to palliative care service delivery for Indigenous populations; papers could use quantitative or qualitative approaches. Common themes were identified using thematic synthesis. Studies were evaluated using Daly's hierarchy of evidence-for-practice in qualitative research. RESULTS:Of 522 articles screened, 39 were eligible for inclusion. Despite diversity in Indigenous peoples' experiences across countries, some commonalities were noted in the preferences for palliative care of Indigenous people: to die close to or at home; involvement of family; and the integration of cultural practices. Barriers identified included inaccessibility, affordability, lack of awareness of services, perceptions of palliative care, and inappropriate services. Identified models attempted to address these gaps by adopting the following strategies: community engagement and ownership; flexibility in approach; continuing education and training; a whole-of-service approach; and local partnerships among multiple agencies. Better engagement with Indigenous clients, an increase in number of palliative care patients, improved outcomes, and understanding about palliative care by patients and their families were identified as positive achievements. CONCLUSIONS:The results provide a comprehensive overview of identified effective practices with regards to palliative care delivered to Indigenous populations to guide future program developments in this field. Further research is required to explore the palliative care needs and experiences of Indigenous people living in urban areas.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the volume and quality of original research in primary care published by researchers from primary care in the United Kingdom against five countries with well established academic primary care.DesignBibliometric analysis.SettingUnited Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies reviewed Research publications relevant to comprehensive primary care and authored by researchers from primary care, recorded in Medline and Embase, with publication dates 2001-7 inclusive.Main outcome measuresVolume of published activity of generalist primary care researchers and the quality of the research output by those publishing the most using citation metrics: numbers of cited papers, proportion of cited papers, and mean citation scores.Results82,169 papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the six countries were classified as research on primary care. In a 15% pragmatic random sample of these records, 40% of research on primary care from the United Kingdom and 46% from the Netherlands was authored by researchers employed in a primary care setting or employed in academic departments of primary care. The 141 researchers with the highest volume of publications reporting research findings published between 2001 and 2007 (inclusive) authored or part authored 8.3% of the total sample of papers. For authors with the highest proportion of publications cited at least five times, the best performers came from the United States (n=5), United Kingdom (n=4), and the Netherlands (n=2). In the top 10 of authors with the highest proportions of publications achieving 20 or more citations, six were from the United Kingdom and four from the United States. The mean Hirsch index (measure of a researcher's productivity and impact of the published work) was 14 for the Netherlands, 13 for the United Kingdom, 12 for the United States, 7 for Canada, 4 for Australia, and 3 for Germany.ConclusionThis international comparison of the volume and citation rates of papers by researchers from primary care consistently placed UK researchers among the best performers internationally.

Project description:ObjectiveIntensive care (ICU) beds are scarce and decision-making regarding admission is complex and multi-factorial. This study aimed to characterise differences in admission decision making between Australia and New Zealand and compare to previous data to establish changes over time.DesignOnline Survey.Setting and participantsAn online survey was distributed to Australian and New Zealand intensive care doctors measuring triage behaviours in the last week and responses to ICU triage scenarios.Main outcome measuresPerceived ICU admission behaviours.Results103 responses were obtained, 83(80.6%) from Australia and 97 (94.2%) from specialist intensivists. The median number of triage decisions and patients declined were 6-10 and 1-5 respectively. No difference was noted in the role of ICU bed capacity in decision making between Australia and New Zealand. Compared to Australian intensivists, New Zealand intensivists were less likely to admit a patient: with relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)(p=0.03), with persistent vegetative state and community acquired (p=0.02) or iatrogenic (p=0.03) pneumonia. Compared to respondents in 2009 (n=238), 2023 respondents were more likely to admit a patient: with a severe intracranial bleed who may become braindead (p=0.005), with relapsed AML and ARDS (p=0.02), with stroke for palliative care (p<0.001); and less likely to admit a patient with persistent vegetative state and iatrogenic pneumonia (p=0.03). In a multivariable analysis, respondents from Australian compared to New Zealand and from 2023 compared to 2009 were more likely to indicate they would admit patients to the ICU in the scenarios described (p<0.001 for both comparisons).ConclusionsOur study suggests that New Zealand intensivists may apply more restrictive ICU admission criteria than Australian intensivists. Changes in attitudes to admission since 2009 may reflect increased awareness of the importance of facilitating organ donation and the role of ICU as providers of palliative care.

Dataset Information

Postoperative critical care and high-acuity care provision in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

Publications

Postoperative critical care and high-acuity care provision in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets