Quality of English inpatient mental health services for people with anxiety or depressive disorders: Findings and recommendations from the core audit of the National Clinical Audit of Anxiety and Depression

BACKGROUND

Clinical audit is a sustained cyclical quality improvement process seeking to improve patient care and outcomes by evaluating services against explicit standards and implementing necessary changes. National audits aim to improve population-level clinical care by identifying unwarranted variations and making recommendations for clinicians, managers and service commissioners. The National Clinical Audit of Anxiety and Depression aimed to improve clinical care for people admitted to English hospitals for treatment of anxiety and depression, to provide comparative data on quality of care, and to support local quality improvement initiatives by identifying and sharing examples of best practice.

PROCEDURES

Thirteen standards were developed based on NICE guidelines, literature review and feedback from a steering committee and reference group of service users and carers. All providers of NHS inpatient mental health services in England were asked to submit details of between 20 and 100 eligible service users/patients admitted between April 2017 and September 2018. To ascertain data reliability, participating services re-audited 5 sets of case-notes with a second auditor, and the coordinating team checked 10 randomly-selected sets of case-notes from 3 services, also selected at random. The reference group and steering committee identified key findings and developed a series of recommendations, which were discussed in regional quality improvement workshops and on-line webinars.

FINDINGS

Data from 3795 case notes were analysed. A sizeable proportion of records indicated that at least one important aspect of initial assessment was not documented. Many service users/patients who could have benefited from an intervention targeted at optimising physical health did not receive it. Only a minority (39%) were referred for psychological therapy. Use of outcome measures varied considerably but no single outcome measure was being used routinely. Most individuals had a care plan recorded in the notes, but a review date was documented in only two-thirds, and almost half of individuals had not received a copy.

CONCLUSIONS

There was considerable variation between English mental health services across many variables, and much scope for improvement. Clinicians should ensure that care plans are developed collaboratively with service users/patients and identified carers should be provided with information about support services. Health services should investigate the reasons for low referral rates for psychological therapies. Clinicians should ensure all service users have jointly developed crisis plans in place at discharge. Service managers should agree outcome measures to evaluate the treatment provided and clinicians should use these measures at initial assessment and review appointments. The implementation of such changes provides an opportunity for collaborative research into mental health service delivery and quality.

Outcomes of transcatheter vs. isolated surgical aortic valve replacement in mediastinal radiation-associated severe aortic stenosis

Introduction

Mediastinal radiation can lead to long-term cardiac sequelae, including aortic valve disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is associated with poor outcomes in this population. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) now provides an alternative treatment strategy that may improve outcomes.

Purpose

To compare 30-day outcomes after TAVR vs. isolated SAVR for radiation-associated severe symptomatic aortic stenosis using the Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) National Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

Methods

We evaluated 1,668 TAVR and 2,611 isolated SAVR patients enrolled in the STS national database from July 2011 through December 2018. A propensity score for TAVR vs. SAVR was derived using a non-parsimonious logistic regression model that included 29 pre-operative variables and was used to generate a 1:1 matched cohort (NTotal=1,560). 30-day outcomes in TAVR vs. SAVR patients were compared in the matched cohort using conditional logistic regression. We also tested for temporal trends in 30-day mortality separately for TAVR and SAVR in the matched cohort, adjusted for potential confounders, to see if outcomes varied across the study period.

Results

In the propensity-matched cohort, baseline demographics, comorbidities and preoperative characteristics were balanced between the TAVR and SAVR groups. The mean age was 73.3 years and 75% were females in each group. In the propensity-matched cohort, TAVR was associated with significantly reduced 30-day all-cause [OR=0.50 (0.30–0.84), p=0.01] and cardiovascular mortality as compared to SAVR [OR=0.33 (0.14–0.78), p=0.01]. Similarly, post-operative complications occurred less in the TAVR group except for stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) [OR=3.17 (1.27–7.93), p=0.01] and pacemaker implantation [OR=1.71 (1.21–2.44), p=0.003] which were significantly higher with TAVR (Figure 1A). While, 30-day mortality associated with both procedures improved over the course of the study, the trend was only statistically significant in the TAVR group following adjustment for potential confounders. TAVR was consistently associated with better survival than SAVR in the matched cohort across the study period (Figure 1B).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that TAVR is a safe alternative to SAVR for radiation-associated severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and is associated with lower 30-day mortality and post-operative complications. The risk of stroke/TIA and pacemaker implantation is higher with TAVR and should be considered when choosing therapy. Additional prospective studies to validate our findings and evaluate long-term outcomes are needed to further guide clinical decision making in this population.

Figure 1

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): Funding to support acquisition of the data from the Society of Thoracic Surgery was obtained from discretionary funds available to Dr. Anju Nohria from the Cardiovascular Medicine Division.

Fixed-dose combination in management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: Expert opinion from an international panel

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive disease with multifactorial etiology. The first-line therapy includes monotherapy (with metformin), which often fails to provide effective glycemic control, necessitating the addition of add-on therapy. In this regard, multiple single-dose agents formulated as a single-dose form called fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) have been evaluated for their safety, efficacy, and tolerability. The primary objective of this review is to develop practice-based expert group opinion on the current status and the causes of concern regarding the irrational use of FDCs, in Indian settings. After due discussions, the expert group analyzed the results from several clinical evidence in which various fixed combinations were used in T2DM management. The panel opined that FDCs (double or triple) improve patient adherence, reduce cost, and provide effective glycemic control and, thereby, play an important role in the management of T2DM. The expert group strongly recommended that the irrational metformin FDC's, banned by Indian government, should be stopped and could be achieved through active participation from the government, regulatory bodies, and health ministry, and through continuous education of primary care physicians and pharmacists. In T2DM management, FDCs play a crucial role in achieving glycemic targets effectively. However, understanding the difference between rational and irrational FDC combinations is necessary from the safety, efficacy, and tolerability perspective. In this regard, primary care physicians will have to use a multistep approach so that they can take informed decisions.

Characterizing street-connected children and youths' social and health inequities in Kenya: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Street-connected children and youth (SCY) in Kenya disproportionately experience preventable morbidities and premature mortality. We theorize these health inequities are socially produced and result from systemic discrimination and a lack of human rights attainment. Therefore, we sought to identify and understand how SCY's social and health inequities in Kenya are produced, maintained, and shaped by structural and social determinants of health using the WHO conceptual framework on social determinants of health (SDH) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) General Comment no. 17.

METHODS

This qualitative study was conducted from May 2017 to September 2018 using multiple methods including focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, archival review of newspaper articles, and analysis of a government policy document. We purposively sampled 100 participants including community leaders, government officials, vendors, police officers, general community residents, parents of SCY, and stakeholders in 5 counties across Kenya to participate in focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. We conducted a thematic analysis situated in the conceptual framework on SDH and the CRC.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that SCY's social and health disparities arise as a result of structural and social determinants stemming from a socioeconomic and political environment that produces systemic discrimination, breaches human rights, and influences their unequal socioeconomic position in society. These social determinants influence SCY's intermediary determinants of health resulting in a lack of basic material needs, being precariously housed or homeless, engaging in substance use and misuse, and experiencing several psychosocial stressors, all of which shape health outcomes and equity for this population.

CONCLUSIONS

SCY in Kenya experience social and health inequities that are avoidable and unjust. These social and health disparities arise as a result of structural and social determinants of health inequities stemming from the socioeconomic and political context in Kenya that produces systemic discrimination and influences SCYs' unequal socioeconomic position in society. Remedial action to reverse human rights contraventions and to advance health equity through action on SDH for SCY in Kenya is urgently needed.