Denise A O'Connor's research while affiliated with Monash University (Australia) and other places

Objective To synthesise the available evidence on the effects of interventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of healthcare. Design Systematic review and structured synthesis. Search sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to 3 May 2023. Selection criteria Randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled or uncontrolled before–after studies that assessed interventions primarily designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the GHG emissions of healthcare initiated by clinicians or healthcare services within any setting. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was GHG emissions. Secondary outcomes were financial costs, effectiveness, harms, patient-relevant outcomes, engagement and acceptability. Data collection and analysis Paired authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified checklist for observational studies and the certainty of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data could not be pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, so we synthesised results in a structured summary of intervention effects with vote counting based on direction of effect. Results 21 observational studies were included. Interventions targeted delivery of anaesthesia (12 of 21), waste/recycling (5 of 21), unnecessary test requests (3 of 21) and energy (1 of 21). The primary intervention type was clinician education. Most (20 of 21) studies were judged at unclear or high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most studies reported effect estimates favouring the intervention (GHG emissions 17 of 18, costs 13 of 15, effectiveness 18 of 20, harms 1 of 1 and staff acceptability 1 of 1 studies), but the evidence is very uncertain for all outcomes (downgraded predominantly for observational study design and risk of bias). No studies reported patient-relevant outcomes other than death or engagement with the intervention. Conclusions Interventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces GHG emissions may reduce GHG emissions and costs, reduce anaesthesia use, waste and unnecessary testing, be acceptable to staff and have little to no effect on energy use or unintended harms, but the evidence is very uncertain. Rigorous studies that measure GHG emissions using gold-standard life cycle assessment are needed as well as studies in more diverse areas of healthcare. It is also important that future interventions to reduce GHG emissions evaluate the effect on beneficial and harmful patient outcomes. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022309428.

The burden of chronic diseases in Nepal is increasing due to demographic and epidemiological transitions; alongside the persistent impact of communicable, maternal, newborn, and child health diseases, this critical situation acts as the precursor to rising healthcare costs. Nepal struggles to sustain its healthcare system amidst political instability, pandemics, natural disasters, and slow economic growth, particularly when healthcare funding is mainly dependent on out-of-pocket payments. Nepal requires lower-cost alternative healthcare delivery arrangements to provide high-value care while relieving economic sustainability pressures. Alternative healthcare delivery arrangements have a broad potential scope; they can involve strategic changes in how care is delivered and by whom, or they can also involve the application of information and communication technologies, e.g., telemedicine. This paper highlights the specific challenges to healthcare system sustainability in Nepal and the potential for high-value, lower-cost alternative healthcare delivery models to improve system performance in the longer term.

Background: Worldwide there is an increasing demand for Hospital at Home as an alternative to hospital admission. Although there is a growing evidence base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Hospital at Home, health service managers, health professionals and policy makers require evidence on how to implement and sustain these services on a wider scale. Objectives: (1) To identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative research evidence on the factors that influence the implementation of Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home and Early Discharge Hospital at Home, from the perspective of multiple stakeholders, including policy makers, health service managers, health professionals, patients and patients' caregivers. (2) To explore how our synthesis findings relate to, and help to explain, the findings of the Cochrane intervention reviews of Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home and Early Discharge Hospital at Home services. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus and Scopus until 17 November 2022. We also applied reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. We searched for studies in any language. Selection criteria: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with qualitative data collection and analysis methods examining the implementation of new or existing Hospital at Home services from the perspective of different stakeholders. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted study characteristics and intervention components, assessed the methodological limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Checklist (CASP) and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research). We applied thematic synthesis to synthesise the data across studies and identify factors that may influence the implementation of Hospital at Home. Main results: From 7535 records identified from database searches and one identified from citation tracking, we included 52 qualitative studies exploring the implementation of Hospital at Home services (31 Early Discharge, 16 Admission Avoidance, 5 combined services), across 13 countries and from the perspectives of 662 service-level staff (clinicians, managers), eight systems-level staff (commissioners, insurers), 900 patients and 417 caregivers. Overall, we judged 40 studies as having minor methodological concerns and we judged 12 studies as having major concerns. Main concerns included data collection methods (e.g. not reporting a topic guide), data analysis methods (e.g. insufficient data to support findings) and not reporting ethical approval. Following synthesis, we identified 12 findings graded as high (n = 10) and moderate (n = 2) confidence and classified them into four themes: (1) development of stakeholder relationships and systems prior to implementation, (2) processes, resources and skills required for safe and effective implementation, (3) acceptability and caregiver impacts, and (4) sustainability of services. Authors' conclusions: Implementing Admission Avoidance and Early Discharge Hospital at Home services requires early development of policies, stakeholder engagement, efficient admission processes, effective communication and a skilled workforce to safely and effectively implement person-centred Hospital at Home, achieve acceptance by staff who refer patients to these services and ensure sustainability. Future research should focus on lower-income country and rural settings, and the perspectives of systems-level stakeholders, and explore the potential negative impact on caregivers, especially for Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home, as this service may become increasingly utilised to manage rising visits to emergency departments.

Objective Our objective was to examine referral patterns for people with musculoskeletal complaints presenting to Australian general practitioners (GPs). Methods This longitudinal analysis from the Population Level Analysis Reporting (POLAR) database includes 133,279 patients with low back (≥18 years old) or neck, shoulder, and/or knee (≥45 years old) complaints seen by 4,538 GPs across 269 practices from 2014 through 2018. Referrals to allied health and medical and/or surgical specialists were included. We determined the number of patients with referrals and GPs who made referrals and examined their timing, associations, and trends over time. Results A total of 43,666 patients (33%) received and 3,053 GPs (67%) made at least one referral. Most referrals were to allied health (n = 25,830, 19%), followed by surgeons (n = 18,805, 14%). Surgical referrals were higher for knee complaints (n = 6,140, 24%) compared with low back, neck, and shoulder complaints (range 8%–15%). The referral category varied predominantly by body region followed by gender, socioeconomic status, and primary health network. Time to allied health referral ranged between median (interquartile range [IQR]) 14 days (0–125 days) for neck complaints and 56 days (5–177 days) for knee complaints. Surgical referrals occurred sooner for those with knee complaints (15 days, IQR 0–128 days). There was a 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9%–2.4%) annual increase in the proportion of allied health referrals and a 1.9% (95% CI 1.6%–2.1%) decrease in surgical referrals across all sites. Conclusion One‐third of patients receive, and two‐thirds of GPs make, referrals for musculoskeletal complaints. Understanding the reasons for referral and differences between GPs who refer more and less frequently may identify factors that explain variations in practice.

Background Australian cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend absolute CVD risk assessment, but less than half of eligible patients have the required risk factors recorded due to fragmented implementation over the last decade. Co-designed decision aids for general practitioners (GPs) and consumers have been developed that improve knowledge barriers to guideline-recommended CVD risk assessment and management. This study used a stakeholder consultation process to identify and pilot test the feasibility of implementation strategies for these decision aids in Australian primary care. Methods This mixed methods study included: (1) stakeholder consultation to map existing implementation strategies (2018-20); (2) interviews with 29 Primary Health Network (PHN) staff from all Australian states and territories to identify new implementation opportunities (2021); (3) pilot testing the feasibility of low, medium, and high resource implementation strategies (2019-21). Framework Analysis was used for qualitative data and Google analytics provided decision support usage data over time. Results Informal stakeholder discussions indicated a need to partner with existing programs delivered by the Heart Foundation and PHNs. PHN interviews identified the importance of linking decision aids with GP education resources, quality improvement activities, and consumer-focused prevention programs. Participants highlighted the importance of integration with general practice processes, such as business models, workflows, medical records and clinical audit software. Specific implementation strategies were identified as feasible to pilot during COVID-19: (1) low resource: adding website links to local health area guidelines for clinicians and a Heart Foundation toolkit for primary care providers; (2) medium resource: presenting at GP education conferences and integrating the resources into audit and feedback reports; (3) high resource: auto-populate the risk assessment and decision aids from patient records via clinical audit software. Conclusions This research identified a wide range of feasible strategies to implement decision aids for CVD risk assessment and management. The findings will inform the translation of new CVD guidelines in primary care. Future research will use economic evaluation to explore the added value of higher versus lower resource implementation strategies.

Background: Australian cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend absolute CVD risk assessment, but less than half of eligible patients have the required risk factors recorded due to fragmented implementation over the last decade. Co-designed decision support tools for general practitioners (GPs) and consumers have been developed that improve knowledge barriers to guideline-recommended CVD risk assessment and management. This study used a stakeholder consultation process to identify and pilot test the feasibility of implementation strategies for these decision support tools in Australian primary care. Methods: This work was based on the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy (MOST) framework and included: 1) stakeholder consultation to map existing implementation strategies (2018-20); 2) interviews with 29 Primary Health Network (PHN) staff from all Australian states and territories to identify new implementation opportunities (2021); 3) pilot testing the feasibility of low, medium, and high resource implementation strategies (2019-21). Framework Analysis was used for qualitative data and Google analytics provided decision support usage data over time. Results: Informal stakeholder discussions indicated a need to partner with existing programs delivered by the Heart Foundation and PHNs. PHN interviews identified the importance of linking decision support tools with GP education resources, quality improvement activities, and consumer-focused prevention programs. Participants highlighted the importance of taking account of general practice processes, such as business models, workflows, medical records and clinical audit software. Specific implementation strategies were identified as feasible to pilot during COVID-19: 1) low resource: adding website links to local health area guidelines for clinicians and a Heart Foundation toolkit for primary care providers; 2) medium resource: presenting at GP education conferences and integrating the resources into audit and feedback reports; 3) high resource: auto-populate the risk assessment and decision aids from patient records via clinical audit software. Conclusions: This research identified a wide range of feasible strategies to implement decision support tools for CVD risk assessment and management. The findings will inform the translation of new CVD guidelines in primary care. Future research will use economic evaluation to explore the added value of higher versus lower resource implementation strategies.

Objectives: To determine the availability and readiness of health facilities to provide family planning, antenatal care and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care in Nepal in 2021. Secondary objectives were to identify progress since 2015 and factors associated with readiness. Method: This is a secondary analysis of cross-sectional Nepal Health Facility Survey (NHFS) data collected in 2015 and 2021. The main outcome measures were availability and readiness of family planning, antenatal care, and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care services. Readiness indices were calculated using WHO-recommended service availability and readiness assessment (SARA) methods (score range 0 to 100%, with 100% indicating facilities are fully prepared to provide a specific service). We used independent t-tests to compare readiness indices in 2015 and 2021. Factors potentially associated with readiness (rurality setting, ecological region, managing authority, management meeting, quality assurance activities, and external supervision) were explored using multivariable linear regression. Results: There were 940 and 1565 eligible health facilities in the 2015 and 2021 surveys, respectively. Nearly all health facilities provided family planning (2015: n = 919 (97.8%); 2021: n = 1530 (97.8%)) and antenatal care services (2015: n = 920 (97.8%); 2021: n = 1538 (98.3%)) in both years, but only half provided delivery services (2015: n = 457 (48.6%); 2021: n = 804 (51.4%)). There were suboptimal improvements in readiness indices over time: (2015-21: family planning 68.0% to 70.9%, p<0.001, antenatal care 49.5% to 54.1%, p<0.001 and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care 56.7% to 58.0%, p = 0.115). The regression model comprising combined datasets of both NHFSs indicates facilities with regular management meetings and/or quality assurance activities had significantly greater readiness for all three indices. Similarly, public facilities had greater readiness for family planning and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care while they had lower readiness for antenatal care. Conclusions: Readiness to deliver family planning, antenatal care and basic emergency obstetric and newborn care services in Nepal remains inadequate, with little improvement observed over six years.

Background Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Objective To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance—Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network. Methods We used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement. Results The final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5). Conclusion We report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Aim: To examine imaging requested by general practitioners (GPs) for patients with low back, neck, shoulder and knee complaints over five years (2014-2018). Methods: This analysis from the Australian POpulation Level Analysis Reporting (POLAR) database included patients presenting with a diagnosis of low back, neck, shoulder and/or knee complaints. Eligible imaging requests included low back and neck X-ray, CT and MRI; knee X-ray, CT, MRI and ultrasound; and shoulder X-ray, MRI and ultrasound. We determined number of imaging requests and examined their timing, associated factors and trends over time. Primary analysis included imaging requests from two weeks before diagnosis to one-year post-diagnosis. Results: There were 133,279 patients (57% low back, 25% knee, 20% shoulder and 11% neck complaints). Imaging was most common among those with a shoulder (49%), followed by knee (43%), neck (34%) and low back complaint (26%). Most requests occurred simultaneously with the diagnosis. Imaging modality varied by body region and to a lesser extent by gender, socioeconomic status and PHN. For low back, there was a 1.3% (95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) annual increase in proportion of MRI and concomitant 1.3% (95% CI 0.8 to 1.8) decrease in CT requests. For neck, there was a 3.0% (95% CI 2.1 to 3.9) annual increase in proportion of MRI and concomitant 3.1% (95% CI 2.2 to 4.0) decrease in X-ray requests. Discussion: GPs commonly request early diagnostic imaging for musculoskeletal complaints at odds with recommended practice. We observed a trend towards more complex imaging for neck and back complaints. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.