Search

Objectives: To examine the incidence and trends in primary care, allied health, geriatric, pain and palliative care service use by permanent residential aged care (PRAC) residents and the older Australian population. Methods: Repeated cross‐sectional analyses on PRAC residents (N = 318,484) and the older (≥65 years) Australian population (N ~ 3.5 million). Outcomes were Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) subsidised primary care, allied health, geriatric, pain and palliative services between 2012–13 and 2016–17. GEE Poisson models estimated incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (IRR). Results: In 2016–17, PRAC residents had a median of 13 (interquartile range [IQR] 5–19) regular general medical practitioner (GP) attendances, 3 (IQR 1–6) after‐hours attendances and 5% saw a geriatrician. Highlights of utilisation changes from 2012–13 to 2016–17 include the following: GP attendances increased by 5%/year (IRR = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.05) for residents compared to 1%/year (IRR = 1.01, 95%CI 1.01–1.01) for the general population. GP after‐hours attendances increased by 15%/year (IRR = 1.15, 95%CI 1.14–1.15) for residents and 9%/year (IRR = 1.08, 95%CI 1.07–1.20) for the general population. GP management plans increased by 12%/year (IRR = 1.12, 95%CI 1.11–1.12) for residents and 10%/year (IRR = 1.10, 95%CI 1.09–1.11) for the general population. Geriatrician consultations increased by 28%/year (IRR = 1.28, 95%CI 1.27–1.29) for residents compared to 14%/year (IRR = 1.14, 95%CI 1.14–1.15) in the general population. Conclusions: The utilisation of most examined services increased in both cohorts over time. Preventive and management care, by primary care and allied health care providers, was low and likely influences the utilisation of other attendances. PRAC residents' access to pain, palliative and geriatric medicine services is low and may not address the residents' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To examine the incidence, trends, and differences between age groups and sex in Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS)‐subsidised mental health service utilisation by older Australians over the past 10 years. Methods: A cross‐sectional cohort study between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2019 was conducted using publicly available MBS data for older individuals aged ≥65 years. Age‐ and sex‐standardised yearly incidence rates of psychological therapy (MBS M06), GP mental health treatments (MBS A20), focussed psychological strategy (MBS M07), and psychiatric attendances (MBS A08) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) estimated using Poisson regression were calculated. Results: Overall, the rate of utilisation of primary care mental health services by the older population increased over the study period, with psychological therapy claims increasing the greatest from 14.4/1000 older persons in 2009/10 to 38.5/1000 in 2018/19 (IRR 1.11, 95% CI 1.09–1.13), followed by GP mental health treatments increasing from 43.7/1000 (95% CI 43.4–43.9) in 2009/10 to 81.0/1000 (95% CI 80.7–81.3) in 2018/19 (IRR 1.07/year, 95% CI 1.06–1.09). Females aged 65–74 years had the highest use of GP mental health treatments at 123.8/1000 compared to 63.6/1000 in males in 2018/2019. Conclusions: While utilisation of mental health services by the older population in Australia has increased over the study period, it is important that policymakers and service providers continue to support access and use of these services, which may facilitate well‐being and quality of life in the older population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe patterns of use of the available Government-subsidised mental health services among people living in Australian residential aged care facilities. Methods: A retrospective population-based trend analysis was conducted, including all non-Indigenous people living in an Australian facility between 2012 and 2017. Adjusted incidence proportions and trends were estimated for four groups of mental health services. Results: The use of Medicare-subsidised mental health services was very low overall. The proportion of residents who accessed primary care mental health services increased from 1.3% in 2012/2013 to 2.4% in 2016/2017, while psychiatry service use increased from 1.9 to 2.3%. Claims for clinical psychology increased from 0.18 to 0.26%, and claims for a registered psychologist, occupational therapist or social worker rose from 0.45 to 1.2%. People with dementia were less likely than people without dementia to access all services aside from psychiatry services. Conclusions: Less than 3% of residents accessed funding subsidies for mental health services and people with dementia experienced pronounced barriers to service access. Mental health care is a pillar of the publicly-funded health system in Australia, and low use of these services among aged care residents indicates a need for organisational and policy changes to improve access. What is known about the topic? People living in residential aged care facilities report very high rates of mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety. What does this paper add? We demonstrate very low use (<3%) of Government-funded mental health services among people living in residential aged care facilities in Australia, with only small increases in use over time. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners should routinely assess the mental health needs of people living in residential aged care and refer for in-reach mental health services where needed, noting that facility staff are usually not trained for this role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Australia is the only developed country to consistently undertake a developmental census of its children nationwide. The repeated collection of the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) has provided an unprecedented opportunity to examine the prevalence of developmental vulnerability across Australia's states and territories, the socio-economic distribution of developmental vulnerability across jurisdictions, and how these distributions might have changed over time., Methods: This study employed multivariable logistic regressions to estimate the probability of developmental vulnerability within each jurisdiction and AEDC collection year (2009 to 2018), adjusting for jurisdictional differences in socio-demographic characteristics. To explore socio-economic inequalities in child development, adjusted slope index of inequality (SII) models were utilised., Findings: The results of this study found reductions in the adjusted prevalence of developmental vulnerability over time in Western Australia (26% to 20%) and Queensland (30% to 25%), with an increase observed in the Australian Capital Territory (27% to 30%). Analysis also indicated an increase in socio-economic inequalities over time in the Northern Territory (+12%), the Australian Capital Territory (+6%) and Tasmania (+4%). Sensitivity analysis found these effects to be robust with an alternative measure of socio-economic position., Interpretation: There is considerable variation in the prevalence and socio-economic inequalities in developmental vulnerability across Australia's jurisdictions. Future research should explore the policy drivers in early childhood education and health contributing to the findings of this study, with a particular focus on jurisdictions where there have been notable changes in developmental vulnerability and socio-economic inequality over time., Funding: Analyses were funded under research contract by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Prof Brinkman is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council fellowship, APP1160185., Competing Interests: Mr Collier, Dr. Gregory, Dr. Harman-Smith, and Dr. Brinkman report Research contract funding from Australian Government Department of Education, Skills and Employment, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Gialamas has nothing to disclose; Dr. Brinkman reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council Australia during the conduct of the study., (© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)