Dataset Information

Prevalence of Eye Conditions, Utilization of Eye Health Care Services, and Ophthalmic Medications After Entering Residential Aged Care in Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the burden and trends of eye diseases, utilisation of eye health care services, and ophthalmic medications among older people living in residential aged care facilities in Australia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Registry of Senior Australians. Individuals aged ≥65 years who entered permanent residential aged care facilities between 2008 and 2015 were included. The prevalence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of eye diseases by year, eye health care services, and ophthalmic medication use within a year of entry into the service were evaluated. Poisson regression models estimated adjusted rate of change using prevalence ratio (PR) by age, sex, state, and frailty scores.

Results

Of the 409,186 people studied, 43.6% (N = 178,367) had an eye condition. Of the total cohort, 32.9% (N = 134,566) had chronic eye conditions and 19.7% (N = 80,661) had an acute eye condition. Common chronic eye conditions were glaucoma (13.6%, N = 55,830), cataract (8%, (N = 32,779), blindness (4.5%, N = 18,856), and poor vision (10.3%, N = 42,245). Prevalence of any eye condition (2008: 42.7%, 95% CI = 42.2%-43.2% and 2015: 41.2%, 95% CI = 40.8-41.6%, PR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99-0.99, P < 0.001), acute eye conditions (2008: 19.8%, 95% CI = 19.4%-20.2% and 2015: 17.4%, 95% CI = 17.1%-17.6%, PR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.97-0.98, P < 0.001), and blindness (2008: 5.2%, 95% CI = 5.0%-5.4% and 2015: 3.7%, 95% CI = 3.5%-3.9%, PR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.93-0.94, p < 0.001). decreased over the study period. The prevalence of glaucoma (2008: 13.5%, 95% CI = 13.2%-13.8% and 2015: 13.8%, 95% CI = 13.5%-13.7%; PR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.99-1.10, P < 0.001) and cataract (2008: 7.4%, 95% CI = 7.2%-7.7% and 2015: 8.5%, 95% CI = 8.3%-8.7%, PR = 1.00, 95% CI = 1.00-1.01, P < 0.001) remained stable or slightly increased. Overall, 46.4% (N = 82,769) of individuals with eye conditions, accessed at least one eye health service within the first year of entering residential care and 70.5% (N = 125,673) used at least one ophthalmic medication. Optometric services (41.7%, N = 74,358) were the most used eye health care services and anti-infective eye drops (37.2%, N = 66,331) were the most commonly dispensed medications.

Conclusions

The prevalence of blindness among older Australian using residential aged care services decreased over the study period. However, the burden of eye diseases remained high between 2008 and 2015, whereas the use of eye health care services was disproportionately low. This study provides evidence of a significant need for eye health care services for older people with an eye disease in residential aged care facilities.

Translational relevance

Four in ten long term aged care residents in Australia had at least one eye condition over the study period, indicating potential for a high eye health care needs in aged care settings.

SUBMITTER: Khadka J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8648054 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo: (1) examine the 90-day incidence of unplanned hospitalisation and emergency department (ED) presentations after residential aged care facility (RACF) entry, (2) examine individual-related, facility-related, medication-related, system-related and healthcare-related predictors of these outcomes and (3) create individual risk profiles.DesignRetrospective cohort study using the Registry of Senior Australians. Fine-Gray models estimated subdistribution HRs and 95% CIs. Harrell's C-index assessed risk models' predictive ability.Setting and participantsIndividuals aged ≥65 years old entering a RACF as permanent residents in three Australian states between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2016 (N=116 192 individuals in 1967 RACFs).Predictors examinedIndividual-related, facility-related, medication-related, system and healthcare-related predictors ascertained at assessments or within 90 days, 6 months or 1 year prior to RACF entry.Outcome measures90-day unplanned hospitalisation and ED presentation post-RACF entry.ResultsThe cohort median age was 85 years old (IQR 80-89), 62% (N=71 861) were women, and 50.5% (N=58 714) had dementia. The 90-day incidence of unplanned hospitalisations was 18.0% (N=20 919) and 22.6% (N=26 242) had ED presentations. There were 34 predictors of unplanned hospitalisations and 34 predictors of ED presentations identified, 27 common to both outcomes and 7 were unique to each. The hospitalisation and ED presentation models out-of-sample Harrell's C-index was 0.664 (95% CI 0.657 to 0.672) and 0.655 (95% CI 0.648 to 0.662), respectively. Some common predictors of high risk of unplanned hospitalisation and ED presentations included: being a man, age, delirium history, higher activity of daily living, behavioural and complex care needs, as well as history, number and recency of healthcare use (including hospital, general practitioners attendances), experience of a high sedative load and several medications.ConclusionsWithin 90 days of RACF entry, 18.0% of individuals had unplanned hospitalisations and 22.6% had ED presentations. Several predictors, including modifiable factors, were identified at the time of care entry. This is an actionable period for targeting individuals at risk of hospitalisations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Older adults in residential aged care facilities have unnecessarily high levels of vision impairment (VI) which are largely treatable or correctable. However, no current comprehensive eye health service model exists in this setting in Australia. We aimed to determine the clinical, person-centered, and economic effectiveness of a novel eye care model, the Residential Ocular Care (ROC). METHODS/DESIGN:This protocol describes a multicentered, prospective, randomized controlled trial. A total of 395 participants with distance vision <?6/12 (0.30 LogMAR) and/or near vision N8 (1.00 M) or worse will be recruited from 38 urban and rural aged care facilities across Victoria, Australia. Aged care facilities will be randomized (1:1) to one of two parallel groups. Participants in the ROC group will receive a comprehensive and tailored eye care pathway that includes, as necessary, refraction and spectacle provision, cataract surgery, low vision rehabilitation, and/or a referral to an ophthalmologist for funded treatment. Usual care participants will be referred for an evaluation to the eye care service associated with the facility or an eye care provider of their choice. The primary outcome will be presenting near and distance vision assessed at the two- and six-month follow-up visits, post baseline. Secondary outcomes will include vision-specific quality of life, mobility, falls, depression, and eye care utilization at two and six months. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will also be undertaken. DISCUSSION:The ROC study is the first multicentered, prospective, customized, and cluster randomized controlled trial in Australia to determine the effectiveness of a comprehensive and tailored eye care model for people residing in aged care facilities. Results from this trial will assist health and social care planners in implementing similar innovative models of care for this growing segment of the population in Australia and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12615000587505 . Registered on 4 June 2015 - retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions that enable people to remain in their own home as they age are of interest to stakeholders, yet detailed information on effective interventions is scarce. Our objective was to systematically search and synthesise evidence for the effectiveness of community-based, aged care interventions in delaying or avoiding admission to residential aged care.MethodNine databases were searched from January 2000 to February 2018 for English publications. Reference lists of relevant publications were searched. The databases yielded 55,221 citations and 50 citations were gleaned from other sources. Where there was sufficient homogeneity of study design, population, intervention and measures, meta-analyses were performed. Studies were grouped by the type of intervention: complex multifactorial interventions, minimal/single focus interventions, restorative programs, or by the target population (e.g. participants with dementia).ResultsData from 31 randomised controlled trials (32 articles) that met our inclusion criteria were extracted and analysed. Compared to controls, complex multifactorial interventions in community aged care significantly improved older adults' ability to remain living at home (risk difference?-?0.02; 95% CI -0.03, -?0.00; p?=?0.04). Commonalities in the 13 studies with complex interventions were the use of comprehensive assessment, regular reviews, case management, care planning, referrals to additional services, individualised interventions, frequent client contact if required, and liaison with General Practitioners. Complex interventions did not have a significantly different effect on mortality. Single focus interventions did not show a significant effect in reducing residential aged care admissions (risk difference 0, 95% CI -0.01, 0.01; p?=?0.71), nor for mortality or quality of life. Subgroup analysis of complex interventions for people with dementia showed significant risk reduction for residential aged care admissions (RD -0.05; 95% CI -0.09, -0.01; p?=?0.02). Compared to controls, only interventions targeting participants with dementia had a significant effect on improving quality of life (SMD 3.38, 95% CI 3.02, 3.74; p?<?0.000001).ConclusionsWhere the goal is to avoid residential aged care admission for people with or without dementia, there is evidence for multifactorial, individualised community programs. The evidence suggests these interventions do not result in greater mortality and hence are safe. Minimal, single focus interventions will not achieve the targeted outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO Registration CRD42016050086 .

Project description:BackgroundThe provision of residential aged care is underpinned by information, and is reliant upon systems that adequately capture and effectively utilise and communicate this information. The aim of this study was to explicate and quantify the volume and method by which information is collected, exchanged within facilities and with external providers, and retrieved from facility information systems and hospitals.MethodsA survey of staff (n = 119), including managers, health informatics officers (HIOs), quality improvement staff, registered nurses (RNs), enrolled nurses (ENs)/endorsed enrolled nurses (EENs) and assistants in nursing (AINs) was carried out in four residential aged care facilities in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Sites varied in size and displayed a range of information technology (IT) capabilities. The survey investigated how and by whom information is collected, retrieved and exchanged, and the frequency and amount of time devoted to these tasks. Descriptive analysis was performed using SPSS, and open responses to questions were coded into key themes.ResultsStaff completed a median of six forms each, taking a median of 30 min per shift. 68.8% of staff reported transferring information from paper to a computer system, which took a median of 30 min per shift. Handover and face-to-face communication was the most frequently used form of information exchange within facilities. There was a large amount of faxing and telephone communication between facility staff and General Practitioners and community pharmacists, with staff reporting sending a median of 2 faxes to pharmacy and 1.5 faxes to General Practitioners, and initiating 2 telephone calls to pharmacies and 1.5 calls to General Practitioners per shift. Only 38.5% of respondents reported that they always had information available at the point-of-care and only 35.4% of respondents reported that they always had access to hospital stay information of residents after hospital discharge.ConclusionsThis survey identified a high volume of information exchange activities, as well as inefficient procedures, such as the transfer of information from paper to computer systems and the reliance upon faxes for communication with external providers. These findings contribute to evidence for the need for interoperable IT systems to allow more efficient and reliable information exchange between facilities and external providers.

Project description:BackgroundEnsuring safe and effective analgesic use in residential aged care services is important because older adults are susceptible to analgesic-related adverse drug events (ADEs).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify the proportion and characteristics of residents of aged care services who may benefit from analgesic review based on indicators in the 2021 Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA) Pain Management Guideline.MethodsCross-sectional analyses of baseline data from the Frailty in Residential Sector over Time (FIRST) study (N = 550 residents) across 12 South Australian residential aged care services in 2019 were conducted. Indicators included the proportion of residents who received > 3000 mg/day of acetaminophen (paracetamol), regular opioids without a documented clinical rationale, opioid doses > 60 mg morphine equivalents (MME)/day, more than one long-acting opioid concurrently, and a pro re nata (PRN) opioid on more than two occasions in the previous 7 days. Logistic regression was performed to investigate factors associated with residents who may benefit from analgesic review.ResultsOf 381 (69.3%) residents charted regular acetaminophen, 176 (46.2%) were charted > 3000 mg/day. Of 165 (30%) residents charted regular opioids, only 2 (1.2%) had no prespecified potentially painful conditions in their medical record and 31 (18.8%) received > 60 MME/day. Of 153 (27.8%) residents charted long-acting opioids, 8 (5.2%) received more than one long-acting opioid concurrently. Of 212 (38.5%) residents charted PRN opioids, 10 (4.7%) received more than two administrations in the previous 7 days. Overall, 196 (35.6%) of 550 residents were identified as potentially benefiting from analgesic review. Females (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.91) and residents with prior fracture (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.12-2.33) were more likely to be identified. Observed pain (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.88) was associated with a lower likelihood of being identified compared with residents with no observed pain. Overall, 43 (7.8%) residents were identified based on opioid-related indicators.ConclusionsUp to one in three residents may benefit from a review of their analgesic regimen, including 1 in 13 who may benefit from a specific review of their opioid regimen. Analgesic indicators represent a new approach to target analgesic stewardship interventions.

Project description:ObjectivesIt is important that the outcomes of advance care planning (ACP) conversations are documented and available at the point of care. Advance care directives (ACDs) are a subset of ACP documentation and refer to structured documents that are completed and signed by competent adults. Other ACP documentation includes informal documentation by the person or on behalf of the person by someone else (eg, clinician, family). The primary objectives were to describe the prevalence and correlates of ACDs among Australians aged 65 and over accessing health and residential aged care services. The secondary aim was to describe the prevalence of other ACP documentation.Design and settingA prospective multicentre health record audit in general practices (n=13), hospitals (n=12) and residential aged care facilities (RACFs; n=26).Participants503 people attending general practice, 574 people admitted to hospitals and 1208 people in RACFs.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrevalence of one or more ACDs; prevalence of other ACP documentation.Results29.8% of people had at least one ACD on file. The majority were non-statutory documents (20.9%). ACD prevalence was significantly higher in RACFs (47.7%) than hospitals (15.7%) and general practices (3.2%) (p<0.001), and varied across jurisdictions. Multivariate logistic regression showed that the odds of having an ACD were positively associated with greater functional impairment and being in an RACF or hospital compared with general practice. 21.6% of people had other ACP documentation.ConclusionsIn this study, 30% of people had ACDs accessible and a further 20% had other ACP documentation, suggesting that approximately half of participants had some form of ACP. Correlates of ACD completion were greater impairment and being in an RACF or hospital. Greater efforts to promote and standardise ACDs across jurisdictions may help to assist older people to navigate and complete ACDs and to receive care consistent with their preferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12617000743369.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Australian government has implemented a compulsory aged care accreditation system to guide and monitor the risk management approach in registered residential aged care (RAC) homes. This research assessed the contribution of electronic health records (EHR) to risk management in RAC homes in relation to the extent that aged care accreditation fulfils its role. METHODS:A convenience sample of 5560 aged care accreditation reports published from 2011 to 2018 was manually downloaded from the Accreditation Agency web site. A mixed-method approach of text data mining and manual content analysis was used to identify any significant differences in failure to meet accreditation outcomes among the RAC homes. This took account of whether EHR or paper records were used, year of accreditation, and size and location of the homes. RESULTS:It appears that aged care accreditation was focused on structure and process, with limited attention to outcome. There was a big variation between homes in their use of measurement indicators to assess accreditation outcomes. No difference was found in outcomes between RAC homes using EHR and those using paper records. Only 3% of the RAC homes were found to have failed some accreditation outcomes. Failure in monitoring mechanism was the key factor for failing many accreditation outcomes. The top five failed outcomes were Human Resource Management, Clinical Care, Information Systems, Medication Management and Behavioural Management. CONCLUSIONS:Sub-optimal outcomes have limited the effectiveness of accreditation in driving and monitoring risk management for care recipient safety in RAC homes. Although EHR is an important structure and process component for RAC services, it made a limited contribution to risk management for accreditation in Australian RAC homes. Either EHR was not effective, or the accreditation process was not robust enough to recognize its influence. Aged care accreditation in Australia needs to develop further outcome-based measures that are supported by robust data infrastructure and clear guidance.