Search

Background: There is growing interest in understanding the care needs of lonely people but studies are limited and examine healthcare settings separately. We estimated and compared healthcare trajectories in lonely and not lonely older female and male respondents to a national health survey. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of community‐dwelling, Ontario respondents (65+ years) to the 2008/2009 Canadian Community Health Survey—Healthy Aging. Respondents were classified at baseline as not lonely, moderately lonely, or severely lonely using the Three‐Item Loneliness Scale and then linked with health administrative data to assess healthcare transitions over a 12 ‐year observation period. Annual risks of moving from the community to inpatient, long‐stay home care, long‐term care settings—and death—were estimated across loneliness levels using sex‐stratified multistate models. Results: Of 2684 respondents (58.8% female sex; mean age 77 years [standard deviation: 8]), 635 (23.7%) experienced moderate loneliness and 420 (15.6%) severe loneliness. Fewer lonely respondents remained in the community with no transitions (not lonely, 20.3%; moderately lonely, 17.5%; and severely lonely, 12.6%). Annual transition risks from the community to home care and long‐term care were higher in female respondents and increased with loneliness severity for both sexes (e.g., 2‐year home care risk: 6.1% [95% CI 5.5–6.6], 8.4% [95% CI 7.4–9.5] and 9.4% [95% CI 8.2–10.9] in female respondents, and 3.5% [95% CI 3.1–3.9], 5.0% [95% CI 4.0–6.0], and 5.4% [95% CI 4.0–6.8] in male respondents; 5‐year long‐term care risk: 9.2% [95% CI 8.0–10.8], 11.1% [95% CI 9.3–13.6] and 12.2% [95% CI 9.9–15.3] [female], and 5.3% [95% CI 4.2–6.7], 9.1% [95% CI 6.8–12.5], and 10.9% [95% CI 7.9–16.3] [male]). Conclusions: Lonely older female and male respondents were more likely to need home care and long‐term care, with severely lonely female respondents having the highest probability of moving to these settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objective of this study was to explore Canadian rural‐urban differences in the use of primary and secondary preventive diagnostic services for acute myocardial infarction (AMI)—a condition that is amenable to primary health care prevention efforts. Methods: We examined primary and secondary preventive care services utilized 2 years prior to a patient's first AMI in a cohort of 30,491 patients in Ontario, Canada, from 2010 to 2012. Using logistic regression, rural‐urban differences in lipid testing, glucose testing, stress testing, electrocardiograms, and echocardiograms in middle‐age and senior patients were examined. Findings: The odds of rural patients receiving care for primary preventive screening were more than 50% lower than the odds for urban patients, with rural seniors being the most affected. Lipid testing: middle‐age OR 0.519 (95% CI, 0.469‐0.574), senior OR 0.422 (0.386‐0.460); glucose testing: middle‐age OR 0.471 (0.426‐0.521), senior OR 0.359 (0.328‐0.394). The odds of rural patients receiving secondary preventive diagnostic care were also lower than the odds for urban patients, but differences between the age groups were not as apparent. Stress testing: middle‐age OR 0.745 (95%CI, 0.642‐0.866), senior OR 0.726 (0.643‐0.820); electrocardiogram: middle‐age OR 0.815 (0.737‐0.901), senior OR 0.724 (0.659‐0.795); echocardiogram: middle‐age OR 0.755 (0.655‐0.869), senior OR 0.746 (0.681‐0.818). Conclusions: Study results support ongoing concerns related to health care for rural Canadians by demonstrating underutilization of AMI preventive diagnostic care among rural patients. Rural seniors are most at risk. These results have implications for rural health care as well as seniors’ health policy in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives As total joint arthroplasty ( TJA) rates rise, there is need to ensure appropriate use. Our objective was to elucidate surgeons' perspectives on appropriateness for TJA. Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted in a sample of orthopaedic surgeons that perform TJA in three Canadian Provinces. Surgeons were asked to discuss their criteria for TJA appropriateness for osteoarthritis; potential value of a decision-support tool to select appropriate candidates; and the role of other stakeholders in assessing appropriateness. Results Of 17 surgeons approached for participation, 14 completed interviews (12 males; 7 aged <50 years; 5 academic; 8 in urban practices). Surgeons agreed that pain and pain impact on patients' quality of life and function were the key criteria to assess appropriateness for TJA, but that these concepts were difficult to assess and not always congruent with structural changes on joint radiography. Some used a wider range of criteria, including their assessments of patient expectations, ability to cope and readiness for surgery. While patient age was not identified as a criterion itself, surgeons did acknowledge that appropriateness criteria may differ for younger versus older patients. Most agreed that a decision-support tool would help ensure that all elements of appropriateness are assessed in a standardized manner, albeit the ultimate decision to offer surgery must be left to the discretion of surgeons, within the context of the doctor-patient relationship. Conclusions Surgeons recognized the need for a tool to support decision making for TJA, particularly in the context of increasing surgical demand in younger patients with less severe arthritis. The work to develop and test such a decision-support tool is underway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Previous patient-level acute myocardial infarction (AMI) research has found higher hospital spending to be associated with improved survival; however, survivor-treatment selection bias traditionally has been overlooked. The purpose of this study was to examine the AMI cost-outcome relationship, taking into account this form of bias.Data Sources: Hospital Discharge Abstract data tracked costs for AMI hospitalizations. Ontario Vital Statistics data tracked patient mortality.Study Design: A standard Cox survival model was compared to an extended Cox model using hospital costs as a time-varying covariate to examine the impact of cost on 1-year survival in a cohort of 30,939 first-time AMI patients in Ontario, Canada, from 2007 to 2010.Principal Findings: Higher patient-level AMI spending decreased the hazard of dying (Standard Model: log-cost hazard ratio: 0.513, 95 percent CI: 0.479-0.549; Extended Model: log-cost hazard ratio: 0.700, 95 percent CI: 0.645-0.758); however, the protective effect was overestimated by 62 percent when survivor-treatment bias was overlooked. In the extended model, a 10 percent increase in spending was associated with a 3.6 percent decrease in hazard of death.Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that if survivor-treatment bias is overlooked, future research may materially overstate the protective effect of patient-level spending on outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective As rates of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for osteoarthritis (OA) rise, there is a need to ensure appropriate use. We undertook this study to develop criteria for appropriate use of TJA. Methods In prior work, we used qualitative methods to separately assess OA patients' and arthroplasty surgeons' perceptions regarding appropriateness of patient candidates for TJA. The current study reviewed the appropriateness themes that emerged from each group, and a series of statements were developed to reflect each unique theme or criterion. A group of arthroplasty surgeons then indicated their level of agreement with each statement using electronic voting. Where ≤70% agreed or disagreed, the criterion was discussed and revised, and revoting occurred. In standardized telephone interviews, OA patient focus group participants indicated their level of agreement with each revised criterion. Results Qualitative research in 58 OA patients and 14 arthroplasty surgeons identified 11 appropriateness criteria. Member-checking in 15 surgeons (including 5 who had participated in the qualitative study) resulted in agreement on 6 revised criteria. These included evidence of arthritis on joint examination, patient-reported symptoms negatively impacting quality of life, an adequate trial of appropriate nonsurgical treatment, realistic patient expectations of surgery, mental and physical readiness of patient for surgery, and patient-surgeon agreement that potential benefits exceed risks. Thirty-six of the original 58 OA patient focus group participants (62.1%) participated in the member-check interviews and endorsed all 6 criteria. Conclusion Patients and surgeons jointly endorsed 6 criteria for assessment of TJA appropriateness in OA patients. Prospective validation of these criteria (assessed preoperatively) as predictive of postoperative patient-reported outcomes is under way and will inform development of a surgeon-patient decision-support tool for assessment of TJA appropriateness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To obtain patients’ perspectives on acceptable waiting times for hip or knee replacement surgery. Methods A questionnaire with both open- and close-ended items was mailed to 432 consecutive patients who had hip or knee replacement surgery 3–12 months previously in Saskatchewan, Canada. A content analysis was used to analyse the text data from the open-ended questions. Results The sample of 303 (response rate 70%) was 59% female with a mean age of 70 years (SD 11). The median waiting time from the decision date to surgery was 17 weeks. Individuals who rated their waiting time very acceptable (48%) had a median waiting time of 13 weeks compared with a median waiting time of 22 weeks for those who rated it unacceptable (23%). The two most common determinants of acceptability were patient expectations and pain and its impact on patient quality of life. The median maximum acceptable waiting time was 13 weeks and median ideal waiting time, 8.6 weeks. Seventy-nine per cent felt that those in greater need (higher severity) should go before them on the waiting list. Patient ratings of maximum acceptable waiting time were based on: pain and loss of mobility, time needed to prepare for surgery, and severity at the time of seeing the surgeon. In consideration of changing their surgeon to one with a shorter waiting list, 68% would not. Conclusions Patient views on waiting times are not only related to quality of life issues, but also to prior expectations and notions of fairness and priority. Understanding patient views on waiting for surgery has implications for better management of waiting times and experiences for joint replacement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]