Personalisation in disability support funding is premised on the notion that services come together through the individual. Where people have very complex needs, many individuals and their supporters find it difficult to facilitate services themselves. This article examines the Integrated Service Response (ISR), an Australian response to complexity implemented during the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) roll-out. We explore its facilitation of collaboration in the context of the NDIS.

Results from interviews and observation of collaboration suggest there are multiple challenges with effective inter-organisational collaboration under the NDIS, including communication between services, and the loss of previous ways of addressing complexity and crisis. Participants valued ISR as a response to complexity, including its ability to facilitate collaboration by ‘getting the right people at the table’.

While programmes such as ISR may improve inter-organisational collaboration around specific clients, broader ongoing systemic approaches are required to address system-wide issues.

Most emergency preparedness planning seeks to identify vulnerable population subgroups; however, focusing on chronic conditions alone may ignore other important characteristics such as location and poverty. Social needs were examined as correlates of anticipated needs and desire for assistance during an emergency.

A retrospective, secondary analysis was conducted using assessments of 8280 adult Medicaid beneficiaries in Louisiana, linked with medical (n = 7936) and pharmacy claims (n = 7473).

The sample was 73% female; 47% Black; 34% White; mean age 41 y. Many had at least 1 chronic condition (75.9%), prescription (90.3%), and social need (45.2%). Across assessments, many reported food (40%), housing (34%), and transportation (33%) needs. However, far more people anticipated social needs during an emergency than in the next month. Having social needs increased the odds of anticipating any need (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5, 1.44-1.56) and desire for assistance during an emergency, even after controlling for significant covariates including older age, race, geographic region, Medicaid plan type, and prescriptions. Chronic conditions were significantly correlated with all anticipated needs in bivariate analyses, but only modestly associated (OR = 1.03, 1.01-1.06) with anticipated medication needs in multivariable analyses.

Identifying individuals with social needs, independent of their chronic disease status, will benefit emergency preparedness outreach efforts.

Recently, the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales 65+ (HoNOS65+) were revised. Twenty-five experts from Australia and New Zealand completed an anonymous web-based survey about the content validity of the revised measure, the HoNOS Older Adults (HoNOS OA).

All 12 HoNOS OA scales were rated by most (≥75%) experts as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ for determining overall clinical severity among older adults. Ratings of sensitivity to change, comprehensibility and comprehensiveness were more variable, but mostly positive. Experts’ comments provided possible explanations. For example, some experts suggested modifying or expanding the glossary examples for some scales (e.g. those measuring problems with relationships and problems with activities of daily living) to be more older adult-specific.

Experts agreed that the HoNOS OA measures important constructs. Training may need to orient experienced raters to the rationale for some revisions. Further psychometric testing of the HoNOS OA is recommended.

There has been increasing recognition that healthy cultures within NHS organisations are key to delivering high-quality, safe care (King's Fund). A focus towards developing systems which recognise and learn from excellence has been shown to improve services’ safety and contribute to staff's morale (Kelly et al. 2016). In 2019 Secure Services at Devon Partnership NHS Trust (DPT) developed an Excellence reporting system. Once successfully piloted, the intention was to extend to other departments before expanding to the entire Trust. Our aims initially were SMART: for 13 reports per week in Secure services and 8 in Perinatal (a smaller team). As we expanded the aim became qualitative: for a system to be embedded so staff could as readily and instinctively report Excellence as they could an error.

We developed our Theory of Change using Deming's theory of profound knowledge, ran a series of PDSAs, and introduced an Excellence system. We engaged early adopters, sent hand-written cards and shared data widely.

Learning included understanding setting up the system, and the importance of a team rather than an individual holding the system. We took this forward to bring the system to Perinatal. We continued to run PDSAs, then ran monthly trust-wide meetings providing space to learn from other directorates.

Staff were initially excited, reports submitted, feedback good, then a plateau and slump.

Something was stopping the system perpetuating. When staff received timely thanks, and others heard about it, staff would go on to promote excellence. However, this was not possible without sufficient admin resources.

In early 2021 we changed tact and approached the top: we presented data to Directors who recognised the value and agreed to support. We then set about publicising the system, and demonstrating at trust-wide meetings.

By July 2021 we saw 10 reports per week in the Specialist Directorate.

By early 2022 reports were being inputted from staff across all directorates and our monthly meetings began to focus on sharing the learning.

We recognised the system's potential impact on safety and staff morale but struggled to sustain the system and support dwindled when staff were stretched.

After approaching leaders, then allocated resources, it allowed for more success. However, it is not yet fully embedded in our Trust's culture.

A lot of our work happened during COVID-19 and despite challenges there has been a new-found flexibility to innovate, greater ease to negotiate, and instigate change.

Financial toxicity is of increasing concern in the United States. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a validated measure; however, it has not been widely utilized among low-income patients and may not fully capture financial toxicity in this population. Furthermore, the relationships between financial toxicity, quality of life (QOL), and patient well-being are poorly understood. We describe the experience of financial toxicity among low-income adults receiving cancer care. We hypothesized that higher financial toxicity would be associated with less income and lower quality of life. Qualitative interviews focused on the financial impact of cancer treatment.

This study was conducted at a cancer clinic in Central Texas. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in Fall and Spring 2018, respectively. The quantitative sample (N = 115) was dichotomized by annual income (<$15,000 vs. >$15,000). Outcomes included financial toxicity (COST), quality of life (FACT-G), and patient well-being (PROMIS measures: Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Pain Interference, and Physical Function). Associations between quality of life, patient well-being, and financial toxicity were evaluated using linear regression. Sequential qualitative interviews were conducted with a subsample of 12 participants.

Patients with <$15k had significantly lower levels of QOL and patient well-being such as depression and anxiety compared to patients with >$15k across multiple measures. A multivariate linear regression found QOL (Β = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.29, p = 0.008) and insurance status (Β = −3.79, 95% CI = −7.42, −0.16, p = 0.04), but not income, were significantly associated with financial toxicity. Three qualitative themes regarding patient's access to cancer care were identified: obtaining healthcare coverage, maintaining financial stability, and receiving social support.

Low-income patients with cancer face unique access barriers and are at risk for forgoing treatment or increased symptom burdens. Comprehensive assessment and financial navigation may improve access to care, symptom management, and reduce strain on social support systems.

The Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program conducted point-prevalence surveys in acute-care hospitals in 2002, 2009, and 2017 to identify trends in antimicrobial use.

Eligible inpatients were identified from a 24-hour period in February of each survey year. Patients were eligible (1) if they were admitted for ≥48 hours or (2) if they had been admitted to the hospital within a month. Chart reviews were conducted. We calculated the prevalence of antimicrobial use as follows: patients receiving ≥1 antimicrobial during survey period per number of patients surveyed × 100%.

In each survey, 28−47 hospitals participated. In 2002, 2,460 (36.5%; 95% CI, 35.3%−37.6%) of 6,747 surveyed patients received ≥1 antimicrobial. In 2009, 3,566 (40.1%, 95% CI, 39.0%−41.1%) of 8,902 patients received ≥1 antimicrobial. In 2017, 3,936 (39.6%, 95% CI, 38.7%−40.6%) of 9,929 patients received ≥1 antimicrobial. Among patients who received ≥1 antimicrobial, penicillin use increased 36.8% between 2002 and 2017, and third-generation cephalosporin use increased from 13.9% to 18.1% (P < .0001). Between 2002 and 2017, fluoroquinolone use decreased from 25.7% to 16.3% (P < .0001) and clindamycin use decreased from 25.7% to 16.3% (P < .0001) among patients who received ≥1 antimicrobial. Aminoglycoside use decreased from 8.8% to 2.4% (P < .0001) and metronidazole use decreased from 18.1% to 9.4% (P < .0001). Carbapenem use increased from 3.9% in 2002 to 6.1% in 2009 (P < .0001) and increased by 4.8% between 2009 and 2017 (P = .60).

The prevalence of antimicrobial use increased between 2002 and 2009 and then stabilized between 2009 and 2017. These data provide important information for antimicrobial stewardship programs.