Search

Background: The capacity to meet anticipated growth in joint replacement demand requires safe, efficient models of care. While short-stay joint replacement programs are being used internationally, they have not been widely implemented in many countries. Importantly, the critical challenges that need to be addressed ahead of large-scale program implementation remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs, including perceived barriers and enablers to implementation and sustainability, and understand current practices in Australia. Methods: Four key stakeholder groups were invited to participate in this national study: (1) health professionals who provide joint replacement care; (2) hospital administrators involved in joint replacement provision; (3) patients with recent joint replacement; and (4) carers of people with recent joint replacement. Data on perceived feasibility (0 (not at all feasible) − 10 (highly feasible), appeal (0 (not at all appealing) − 10 (highly appealing), current practices, and barriers and enablers were collected using visual analogue scales, multiple response option and open-ended questions, via an online platform. Descriptive analysis and free-text content analysis was undertaken. Results: Data were available from 1,445 participants including 360 health professionals, 20 hospital administrators, 1,034 patients, and 31 carers. Short-stay program implementation was considered moderately feasible by health professionals (median 6, interquartile range (IQR) 3–8) and hospital administrators (median 5, IQR 5–6). Short-stay programs were moderately appealing to patients (median 7, IQR 2–9) but of little appeal to carers (median 3, IQR 1–7). Prominent implementation barriers included perceived limited appropriateness of short-stay programs, inadequate home supports, and issues around reimbursement models or program funding. Not having daily physiotherapy access and concerns about pain and mobility at home were common barriers for patients. Concern about patients' ability to manage daily activities was the most common barrier for carers. Access to post-discharge services, better funding models, improved staffing, and consistent protocols and national care standards were prominent enablers. Conclusions: This national study has uniquely captured multiple stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs. The findings can guide future quality improvement and implementation initiatives and the development of resources to best support patients, carers, clinicians, and hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to capture Australian frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. This was a cross-sectional study using an online survey consisting of five domains: demographics; self-assessment of COVID risk; PPE access; PPE training and confidence; and anxiety. Participants were recruited from community and hospital healthcare settings in Australia, including doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, paramedics, and aged care and support staff. Data analysis was descriptive with free-text responses analysed using qualitative content analysis and multivariable analysis performed for predictors of confidence, bullying, staff furlough and anxiety. The 2258 respondents, comprised 80% women, 49% doctors and 40% nurses, based in hospital (39%) or community (57%) settings. Key findings indicated a lack of PPE training (20%), calls for fit testing, insufficient PPE (25%), reuse or extended use of PPE (47%); confusion about changing guidelines (48%) and workplace bullying over PPE (77%). An absence of in-person workplace PPE training was associated with lower confidence in using PPE (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.12, 0.37) and a higher likelihood of workplace bullying (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.00, 2.03) perhaps reflecting deficiencies in workplace culture. Deficiencies in PPE availability, access and training linking to workplace bullying, can have negative physical and psychological impacts on a female dominant workforce critical to business as usual operations and pandemic response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focus of Presentation Amongst Australia's working-age population with arthritis, financial distress is known to be high and contribute to poorer health outcomes. Yet the personal financial burden of living with arthritis is not well understood. Here we present initial findings from one of the first projects to measure personal financial distress as a determinant of health for individuals living with arthritis. Findings Participants aged 18-50 years detailed their arthritis-attributable out-of-pocket costs in an online consumer-informed cost diary; once a week, for six weeks, alongside a work productivity and financial distress scale. Costs were grouped into seven categories, including: direct medical appointments, allied health appointments, other health appointments, medications or supplements, symptom/pain management items, medical tests, and other expenses. Costs per individual per week ranged from $40.30 (AUD) to $25,789 (AUD). High costs were not linked to quality of care, demonstrated by one participant spending $495.00 (AUD) on chiropractic appointments across the six weeks. High levels of financial distress were associated with reduced work productivity, but were not associated with level of weekly expenditure. Conclusions/Implications Adults with arthritis experience financial hardship associated with their disease. Discussion of arthritis-related financial concerns should form part of shared clinical decision-making and education, to facilitate prioritisation of care that is evidence-based and feasible. Key messages These findings can be used to raise awareness of key fiscal issues relevant to adults with arthritis, and to educate clinicians about the wide-ranging impacts of arthritis beyond physical symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emerging evidence suggests that people with arthritis are reporting increased physical pain and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, Twitter's daily usage has surged by 23% throughout the pandemic period, presenting a unique opportunity to assess the content and sentiment of tweets. Individuals with arthritis use Twitter to communicate with peers, and to receive up-to-date information from health professionals and services about novel therapies and management techniques. Objective: The aim of this research was to identify proxy topics of importance for individuals with arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore the emotional context of tweets by people with arthritis during the early phase of the pandemic. Methods: From March 20 to April 20, 2020, publicly available tweets posted in English and with hashtag combinations related to arthritis and COVID-19 were extracted retrospectively from Twitter. Content analysis was used to identify common themes within tweets, and sentiment analysis was used to examine positive and negative emotions in themes to understand the COVID-19 experiences of people with arthritis. Results: In total, 149 tweets were analyzed. The majority of tweeters were female and were from the United States. Tweeters reported a range of arthritis conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and psoriatic arthritis. Seven themes were identified: health care experiences, personal stories, links to relevant blogs, discussion of arthritis-related symptoms, advice sharing, messages of positivity, and stay-at-home messaging. Sentiment analysis demonstrated marked anxiety around medication shortages, increased physical symptom burden, and strong desire for trustworthy information and emotional connection. Conclusions: Tweets by people with arthritis highlight the multitude of concurrent concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding these concerns, which include heightened physical and psychological symptoms in the context of treatment misinformation, may assist clinicians to provide person-centered care during this time of great health uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]