Dataset Information

The hospital admission profile of people presenting to specialist addiction services with problematic use of alcohol or opioids: A national retrospective cohort study in England.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Over the past decade in England the rate of alcohol and opioid-related hospitalisation has increased alongside a simultaneous reduction in people accessing specialist addiction treatment. We aimed to determine the hospitalisation patterns of people presenting to addiction treatment with problematic use of alcohol or opioids, and estimate how individual sociodemographic characteristics and hospital admission diagnoses are associated with the rate of hospitalisation, death and successful completion of addiction treatment.

Methods

A national record linkage between Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) captured lifetime hospital admission profiles of people presenting to addiction services in England in 2018/19. Latent class analysis assigned individuals to clusters based on the ICD-10 diagnosis coded as primary reason for admission. Negative binomial, and multilevel logistic regression models determined if outcomes differed due to sociodemographic characteristics or assigned diagnostic clusters.

Findings

Inpatient data were available for 64,840 alcohol patients, and 107,296 opioid patients. The most common reasons for admission were alcohol withdrawal (n = 20,024 (5.3% of alcohol-cohort admissions)), and unspecified illness (n = 11,387 (2.1% of opioid-cohort admissions)). Seven diagnostic clusters were identified for each substance cohort. People with admissions predominantly relating to mental and behavioural disorders, and injuries or poisonings had significantly higher hospitalisation rates (adjusted IRR 7.06 (95%CI 6.72-7.42);p < 0.001), higher odds of death during addiction treatment (adjusted OR 2.71 (95%CI 2.29-3.20);p < 0.001) and lower odds of successful treatment completion (adjusted OR 0.72 (95%CI 0.68-0.76);p < 0.001).

Interpretation

This is the first study to interrogate national hospitalisation patterns within people presenting to addiction services with problematic use of alcohol or opioids. Having identified high-risk, high-cost individuals with increased hospital usage, and increased odds of death, future work should focus on targeting appropriate interventions, to improve their health outcomes and prevent unnecessary hospital readmission.

Funding

The work was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC).

SUBMITTER: Roberts E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8080891 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionFood Addiction (FA) has been related with eating disorders (ED), especially Bulimia Nervosa (BN). BN + FA may have different physical characteristics than patients with BN without the comorbidity, such as body mass index (BMI) or body composition, and psychological as emotion regulation. However, the relationship between psychological and physical aspects, connected by problematic food and its influence on body composition, has been barely studied. Therefore, the aims of the present study are.Aims(a) To explore the differences in body composition between FA positive (FA+) and negative (FA-) in women with BN; (b) to identify problematic relationship with certain food types, according with the foods mentioned in the YFAS scale questionnaire, between FA+ and FA- patients; (c) to know the psychological characteristic differences between FA+ and FA- patients, considering emotion regulation, personality traits and general psychopathological state; (d) to identify the relationship between physical and psychological traits, and the identified problematic foods, in patients with BN and FA.MethodologyN = 81 BN women patients, with a mean age of 29.73 years ± 9.80 SD, who completed the questionnaires: Yale Food Addiction Scale V 1.0 (YFAS 1.0), Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2), Symptom Checklist-90 Items-Revised (SCL-90-R), and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Strategies (DERS). YFAS problematic foods were grouped considering their principal nutrients sources. Body composition and difference in metabolic age was determined using bioimpedance analyzer.ResultsThe 88% of patients with BN presented FA+. Patients with BN who were FA+ self-reported more problematic relationships with sweets and starches. Also presented higher emotion regulation difficulties, general psychopathology and eating symptomatology severity, than those without FA. Finally, emotional regulation difficulties were positively associated with higher eating disorder symptomatology and more types of foods self-reported as problematic, which increased indirectly fat mass.ConclusionThe results suggest that BN + FA presented more eating and psychopathology symptomatology and higher problems with specific food types. As well, the path analysis emphasized that emotion regulation difficulties might be related with problematic food relationship in BN, impacting over the ED severity.ImplicationsThe results may impact the development of precise therapies for patients with BN + FA.

Project description:BackgroundIncreased mortality rates associated with weekend hospital admission (the so-called weekend effect) have been attributed to suboptimum staffing levels of specialist consultants. However, evidence for a causal association is elusive, and the magnitude of the weekend specialist deficit remains unquantified. This uncertainty could hamper efforts by national health systems to introduce 7 day health services. We aimed to examine preliminary associations between specialist intensity and weekend admission mortality across the English National Health Service.MethodsEligible hospital trusts were those in England receiving unselected emergency admissions. On Sunday June 15 and Wednesday June 18, 2014, we undertook a point prevalence survey of hospital specialists (consultants) to obtain data relating to the care of patients admitted as emergencies. We defined specialist intensity at each trust as the self-reported estimated number of specialist hours per ten emergency admissions between 0800 h and 2000 h on Sunday and Wednesday. With use of data for all adult emergency admissions for financial year 2013-14, we compared weekend to weekday admission risk of mortality with the Sunday to Wednesday specialist intensity ratio within each trust. We stratified trusts by size quintile.Findings127 of 141 eligible acute hospital trusts agreed to participate; 115 (91%) trusts contributed data to the point prevalence survey. Of 34,350 clinicians surveyed, 15,537 (45%) responded. Substantially fewer specialists were present providing care to emergency admissions on Sunday (1667 [11%]) than on Wednesday (6105 [42%]). Specialists present on Sunday spent 40% more time caring for emergency patients than did those present on Wednesday (mean 5·74 h [SD 3·39] vs 3·97 h [3·31]); however, the median specialist intensity on Sunday was only 48% (IQR 40-58) of that on Wednesday. The Sunday to Wednesday intensity ratio was less than 0·7 in 104 (90%) of the contributing trusts. Mortality risk among patients admitted at weekends was higher than among those admitted on weekdays (adjusted odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·08-1·11; p<0·0001). There was no significant association between Sunday to Wednesday specialist intensity ratios and weekend to weekday mortality ratios (r -0·042; p=0·654).InterpretationThis cross-sectional analysis did not detect a correlation between weekend staffing of hospital specialists and mortality risk for emergency admissions. Further investigation is needed to evaluate whole-system secular change during the implementation of 7 day services. Policy makers should exercise caution before attributing the weekend effect mainly to differences in specialist staffing.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of reorganisation of neonatal specialist care services in England after a UK Department of Health report in 2003.DesignA population-wide observational comparison of outcomes over two epochs, before and after the establishment of managed clinical neonatal networks.SettingEpoch one: 294 maternity and neonatal units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, 1 September 1998 to 31 August 2000, as reported by the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Sudden Deaths in Infancy Project 27/28. Epoch two: 146 neonatal units in England contributing data to the National Neonatal Research Database at the Neonatal Data Analysis Unit, 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010.ParticipantsBabies born at a gestational age of 27(+0)-28(+6) (weeks+days): 3522 live births in epoch one; 2919 babies admitted to a neonatal unit within 28 days of birth in epoch two.InterventionThe national reorganisation of neonatal services into managed clinical networks.Main outcome measuresThe proportion of babies born at hospitals providing the highest volume of neonatal specialist care (≥ 2000 neonatal intensive care days annually), having an acute transfer (within the first 24 hours after birth) and/or a late transfer (between 24 hours and 28 days after birth) to another hospital, assessed by change in distribution of transfer category ("none," "acute," "late"), and babies from multiple births separated by transfer. For acute transfers in epoch two, the level of specialist neonatal care provided at the destination hospital (British Association of Perinatal Medicine criteria).ResultsAfter reorganisation, there were increases in the proportions of babies born at 27-28 weeks' gestation in hospitals providing the highest volume of neonatal specialist care (18% (631/3495) v 49% (1325/2724); odds ratio 4.30, 95% confidence interval 3.83 to 4.82; P<0.001) and in acute and late postnatal transfers (7% (235) v 12% (360) and 18% (579) v 22% (640), respectively; P<0.001). There was no significant change in the proportion of babies from multiple births separated by transfer (33% (39) v 29% (38); 0.86, 0.50 to 1.46; P=0.57). In epoch two, 32% of acute transfers were to a neonatal unit providing either an equivalent (n=87) or lower (n=26) level of specialist care.ConclusionsThere is evidence of some improvement in the delivery of neonatal specialist care after reorganisation. The increase in acute transfers in epoch two, in conjunction with the high proportion transferred to a neonatal unit providing an equivalent or lower level of specialist care, and the continued separation of babies from multiple births, are indicative of poor coordination between maternity and neonatal services to facilitate in utero transfer before delivery, and continuing inadequacies in capacity of intensive care cots. Historical data representing epoch one are available only in aggregate form, preventing examination of temporal trends or confounding factors. This limits the extent to which differences between epochs can be attributed to reorganisation and highlights the importance of routine, prospective data collection for evaluation of future health service reorganisations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services across London Cancer and Greater Manchester Cancer, England, may significantly change how patients experience care. These centres are changing specialist surgical pathways for several cancers including prostate, bladder, kidney, and oesophago-gastric cancers, increasing the specialisation of centres and providing surgery in fewer hospitals. While there are potential benefits related to centralising services, changes of this kind are often controversial. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to the centralisation of specialist surgical services that are important to patients, carers and health care professionals. METHODS:This was a questionnaire-based study involving a convenience sample of patient and public involvement (PPI) and cancer health care professional (HCP) sub-groups in London and Greater Manchester (n?=?186). Participants were asked to identify which of a list of factors potentially influenced by the centralisation of specialist cancer surgery were important to them and to rank these in order of importance. We ranked and shortlisted the most important factors. RESULTS:We obtained 52 responses (28% response rate). The factors across both groups rated most important were: highly trained staff; likelihood and severity of complications; waiting time for cancer surgery; and access to staff members from various disciplines with specialised skills in cancer. These factors were also ranked as being important separately by the PPI and HCP sub-groups. There was considerable heterogeneity in the relative ordering of factors within sub-groups and overall. CONCLUSIONS:This study examines and ranks factors important to patients and carers, and health care professionals in order to inform the implementation of centralisation of specialist cancer surgical services. The most important factors were similar in the two stakeholder sub-groups. Planners should consider the impact of reorganising services on these factors, and disseminate this information to patients, the public and health care professionals when deciding whether or not and how to centralise specialist cancer surgical services.

Project description:BackgroundAccording to a landmark decision by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, people with a substance use disorder (SUD) are now eligible for disability benefits if their disorder impairs their ability to work. Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most common SUDs in Switzerland and is associated with high societal and economic costs. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the views of professional stakeholder groups regarding AUD and their opinions on the new legal precedent.MethodsSwiss social insurance lawyers, insurance medical experts, and addiction-specialist therapists (N = 79) answered an online questionnaire. Due to violations of the assumption of normality, non-parametric tests are reported in most cases.ResultsTherapists held significantly higher regard for patients with AUD than both lawyers and insurance medical experts. All three groups strongly supported a disease view of AUD but agreed significantly less that it was a disease like cancer, suggesting that AUDs might be seen as at least partially self-inflicted. Overall, moralist views of AUD received considerably less support than the disease view, with lawyers agreeing with moralist views more than therapists. All groups were well-informed and largely supportive about the new legal precedent. When asked about stipulating participation in medical treatment to mitigate damages associated with a claim, attending therapy was supported the most amongst the groups (80% of participants felt this was somewhat or fully appropriate), followed by a reduction in drinking quantity (58%), and abstinence (18%). In all three groups, we identified associations between certain views and opinions on AUD and support for the new legal precedent.ConclusionsWhilst there were differences between the stakeholder groups in their regard for and views of AUD, all three adopted a clear harm-reduction approach with respect to measures to mitigate damages associated with the insurance disability claim. A possible connection of this stance with the Swiss national drug policy in recent years is discussed together with limitations of the study and practical implications of the findings.