Suchergebnisse

IntroductionMusculoskeletal problems, including conditions such as back pain, neck pain, rheumatoid arthritis, gout and osteoarthritis are common in the population and significant contributors to global disease burden. Age is one of the most common risk factors for musculoskeletal conditions and over 40% of older people accessing residential aged care have a musculoskeletal condition. It is not known whether individuals living in the community with musculoskeletal conditions have similar needs to those in permanent care and this is important to know in order to provide appropriate care.
Objectives and ApproachThe objective of this study was to profile individuals with musculoskeletal conditions in different aged care service settings (i.e. permanent care, community care only, transition/ respite care, or no services). Specifically, we examined the concurrent chronic conditions, health risk factors and functional limitations of individuals by service setting. A cross-sectional evaluation of individuals in the National Historical Cohort of the Registry of Senior Australians (ROSA) between 2004 and 2014 was conducted. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated the factors associated with being in different aged care settings. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined.
Results401,026 (42.5%) individuals with musculoskeletal conditions were assessed for aged care service eligibility during the study period. Of these 197,181 (49.2%) accessed permanent care, 37,003 (9.2%) accessed home care, 54,826 (13.7%) transition/respite, and 112,016 (27.9%) - no care. Individuals accessing community care compared to residential care were more likely to be female, have pain and have difficulty maintaining their home, as were individuals accessing no services compared to residential care.
Conclusion / ImplicationsCompared to those in residential care, individuals with musculoskeletal conditions in the community with or without assistance had few differences related to other chronic conditions and functional limitations. But the reasons why some had support, while others did not, are unclear.

Background: Measuring research impact is of critical interest to philanthropic and government funding agencies interested in ensuring that the research they fund is both scientifically excellent and has meaningful impact into health and other outcomes. The Beat Cancer Project (BCP) is a AUD $34 m cancer research funding scheme that commenced in 2011. It was initiated by an Australian charity (Cancer Council SA), and supported by the South Australian Government and the state's major universities. Methods: This study applied Buxton and Hanney's Payback Framework to assess research impact generated from the BCP after 3 years of funding. Data sources were an audit of peer-reviewed publications from January 2011 to September 2014 from Web of Knowledge and a self-report survey of investigators awarded BCP research funding during its first 3 years of implementation (2011–2013). Of the 104 surveys, 92 (88%) were completed. Results: The BCP performed well across all five categories of the Payback Framework. In terms of knowledge production, 1257 peer-reviewed publications were generated and the mean impact factor of publishing journals increased annually. There were many benefits to future research with 21 respondents (23%) reporting career advancement, and 110 higher degrees obtained or expected (including 84 PhDs). Overall, 52% of funded projects generated tools for future research. The funded research attracted substantial further income yielding a very high rate of leverage. For every AUD $1 that the cancer charity invested, the BCP gained an additional AUD $6.06. Five projects (5%) had informed policy and 5 (5%) informed product development, with an additional 31 (34%) and 35 (38%) projects, respectively, anticipating doing so. In terms of health and sector and broader economic benefits, 8 (9%) projects had influenced practice or behaviour of health staff and 32 (34%) would reportedly to do so in the future. Conclusions: Research impact was a priority of charity and government funders and led to a deliberate funding strategy. Emphasising research impact while maintaining rigorous, competitive processes can achieve the joint objectives of excellence in research, yielding good research impact and a high rate of leverage for philanthropic and public investment, as indicated by these early results.

ObjectivesTo: (1) outline the research produced using linked data from the Registry of Senior Australians (ROSA) which informed the recommendations from Australia's Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (delivered February 2021); (2) describe the Australian Government Aged Care Roadmap Reforms (announced May 2021) resulting from the recommendations.
ApproachROSA was established in 2017 and is led by a partnership of scientists, clinicians, aged care providers and consumer advocates from nine organisations seeking to improve the lives of Australians in aged care. ROSA is a Clinical Quality Registry comprised of linked national and cross-jurisdictional aged and health care data and includes a national historical de-identified cohort (3.5 million individuals, 2002-2020) and a prospectively enrolled cohort in the state of South Australia (26,600 individuals, 2018-current). This is a summary of ROSA's high-quality evidence used by the Royal Commission and translation of this evidence into policy by leveraging existing data infrastructure.
ResultsBetween 2019-2020 the ROSA team led the delivery of four in-depth reports for the Royal Commission, contributed data and expertise to an additional four published Commission reports. Examples of ROSA outputs informing the Commissions' recommendations included: evidence of national increased psychotropic medication use following entry to residential aged care, evidence of higher risk of mortality and entry to permanent care while waiting for home care packages, development of quality indicators to monitor quality and safety of care nationally, and to facilitate international comparisons and benchmarking. Examples of recommendations included in the Australian Government Aged Care Roadmap: release of substantial funding to increase the availability of home care packages, public reporting system for quality and safety monitoring and several changes to medication management.
ConclusionRegistries are key resources for high quality real-world evidence generation needed to inform national investigations, ultimately leading to significant sector reform. The ROSA experience highlights that cross-sectoral data linkages, together with technical expertise, informed by clinicians and consumers, are invaluable resources for system reform and policy generation.