Search

Objective To identify factors associated with better or poorer self-reported health status in New Zealand military Veterans.Design A cross-sectional survey.Participants The participants of interest were the 3874 currently serving Veterans who had been deployed to a conflict zone, but all Veterans were eligible to participate.Study variables The EQ-5D-5L, asking about problems across five dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression), with five levels of severity (eg, no, slight, moderate, severe or extreme problems), also containing a Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) to self-assess health state, scaled from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) imagined health.Hypothetical relationships with better health were positive social support, sleep and psychological flexibility; with poorer health, post-traumatic stress, exposure to psychological trauma, distress and hazardous drinking.Results The EQ5-D-5L was completed by 1767 Veterans, 1009 serving, a response rate of 26% from that group, 1767 completing the EQ5-D, 1458 who had deployed, 288 who had not and the 21 who did not provide deployment data. Of these, 247 were not used in the analysis due to missing values in one or more variables, leaving 1520 for analysis.A significantly higher proportion of Veterans reported ‘any problems’ rather than ‘no problems’ with four EQ-5D dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities and pain or discomfort, but no difference in anxiety or depression. Age, length of service, deployment, psychological flexibility and better sleep quality were associated with higher EQ-VAS scores; distress with lower EQ-VAS scores.Conclusion In this sample of New Zealand Veterans, psychological flexibility and good sleep are associated with better self-rated health, and distress and poor sleep with diminished health. These factors might be used as sentinel health indicators in assessing Veteran health status, and cognitive–behavioural therapy encompassing these domains may be useful in improving the health of New Zealand Veterans.

Objectives To determine the epidemiology of healthcare harm observable in general practice records.Design Retrospective cohort records review study.Setting 72 general practice clinics were randomly selected from all 988 New Zealand clinics stratified by rurality and size; 44 clinics consented to participate.Participants 9076 patient records were randomly selected from participating clinics.Intervention Eight general practitioners examined patient records (2011–2013) to identify harms, harm severity and preventability. Analyses were weighted to account for the stratified sampling design and generalise findings to all New Zealand patients.Main outcome measures Healthcare harm, severity and preventability.Results Reviewers identified 2972 harms affecting 1505 patients aged 0–102 years. Most patients (82.0%, weighted) experienced no harm. The estimated incidence of harm was 123 per 1000 patient-years. Most harms (2160; 72.7%, 72.4% weighted) were minor, 661 (22.2%, 22.8% weighted) were moderate, and 135 (4.5%, 4.4% weighted) severe. Eleven patients died, five following a preventable harm. Of the non-fatal harms, 2411 (81.6%, 79.4% weighted) were considered not preventable. Increasing age and number of consultations were associated with increased odds of harm. Compared with patients aged ≤49 years, patients aged 50–69 had an OR of 1.77 (95% CI 1.61 to 1.94), ≥70 years OR 3.23 (95% CI 2.37 to 4.41). Compared with patients with ≤3 consultations, patients with 4–12 consultations had an OR of 7.14 (95% CI 5.21 to 9.79); ≥13 consultations OR 30.06 (95% CI 21.70 to 41.63).Conclusions Strategic balancing of healthcare risks and benefits may improve patient safety but will not necessarily eliminate harms, which often arise from standard care. Reducing harms considered ‘not preventable’ remains a laudable challenge.

Introduction Prescription charges prevent many people from accessing the medicines they need to maintain or improve their health. In New Zealand, where most people pay $5 per prescription item, Māori and Pacific peoples, those living in most deprived areas and those with chronic health conditions are the most likely to report that cost prevents them from accessing medicines.Methods and analysis This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will evaluate the effect of removing prescription charges on health outcomes and healthcare utilisation patterns of people with low income and high health needs. We will enrol 2000 participants: half will be allocated to the intervention group and we will pay for their prescription charges for 12 months. The other half will receive usual care. The primary outcome will be hospital bed-days. Secondary outcomes will be: all-cause and diabetes/mental health-specific hospitalisations, prescription medicines dispensed (number and type), deaths, emergency department visits and quality of life as measured by the 5-level EQ-5D version. Costs associated with these outcomes will be compared in an economic substudy. A qualitative substudy will also help understand the impact of free prescriptions on participant well-being using in-depth interviews.Discussion Being unable to afford prescription medicines is only one of many factors that influence adherence to medicines, but removing prescription charges is relatively simple and in New Zealand would be cheap compared with other policy changes. This RCT will help identify the extent of the impact of a simple intervention to improve access to medicines on health outcomes and health service utilisation.Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Central Health and Disability Ethics Committee (NZ) in July 2019 (19/CEN/33). Findings will be reported in peer-reviewed publications, as well as in professional newsletters, mainstream media and through public meetings.Trial registration number ACTRN12618001486213p.