Health status and health care utilization after discharge from geriatric in-hospital stay - description of a register-based study.

BACKGROUND: This study is the first part of a register-based research program with the overall aim to increase the knowledge of the health status among geriatric patients and to identify risk factors for readmission in this population. The aim of this study was two-fold: 1) to evaluate the validity of the study cohorts in terms of health care utilization in relation to regional cohorts; 2) to describe the study cohorts in terms of health status and health care utilization after discharge. METHODS: The project consist of two cohorts with data from patient records of geriatric in-hospital stays, health care utilization data from Stockholm Regional Healthcare Data Warehouse 6 months after discharge, socioeconomic data from Statistics Sweden. The 2012 cohort include 6710 patients and the 2016 cohort, 8091 patients; 64% are women, mean age is 84 (SD 8). RESULTS: Mean days to first visit in primary care was 12 (23) and 10 (19) in the 2012 and 2016 cohort, respectively. Readmissions to hospital was 38% in 2012 and 39% in 2016. The validity of the study cohorts was evaluated by comparing them with regional cohorts. The study cohorts were comparable in most cases but there were some significant differences between the study cohorts and the regional cohorts, especially regarding amount and type of primary care. CONCLUSION: The study cohorts seem valid in terms of health care utilization compared to the regional cohorts regarding hospital care, but less so regarding primary care. This will be considered in the analyses and when interpreting data in future studies based on these study cohorts. Future studies will explore factors associated with health status and re-admissions in a population with multi-morbidity and disability.

Evaluating the hip-flask defence using analytical data from ethanol and ethyl glucuronide. A comparison of two models.

AIM: Claimed intake of alcohol after a traffic incident, called the hip-flask defence, can be objectively assessed by different methods. One of them is the use of two consecutive ethanol concentrations in urine and the ratio between ethanol concentrations in urine and blood. Another one is the concentrations of ethyl glucuronide (EtG) and ethyl sulphate (EtS) in blood and their ratio to ethanol. The experimental basis for both these models is from single dose studies only. The aim of this study was therefore to describe the kinetics of ethanol, EtG and EtS after ingestion of two repeated doses of ethanol and to investigate the usefulness of the different models for the assessment of the hip-flask defence. METHODS: Thirty-five subjects ingested a first dose of 0.51 g of ethanol per kilo body weight, and two hours later a second dose (the hip-flask drink) of 0.25, 0.51 or 0.85 g of ethanol per kilo body weight. Ten urine and 17 blood samples were collected and analysed for ethanol, EtG and EtS using fully validated methods. It was investigated if all subjects fulfilled the criteria for recent drinking, according to the two different models, when using the samples collected 180-240 minutes after start of first dose drinking. According to the first model, increase in urinary ethanol concentrations and a ratio UAC/BAC below 1.3 indicated recent drinking. According to the second model, increase in blood EtG concentrations and a ratio ethanol (g/kg)/EtG (mg/L) above 1 indicated recent drinking. RESULTS: All subjects in the high dose group fulfilled all criteria for recent drinking. One subject in the medium dose group and nine subjects in the low dose group failed to show increasing UAC and/or a UAC/BAC ratio below 1.3. One subject in the low dose group failed to show increasing concentrations of blood EtG, but all subjects showed a ratio ethanol/EtG above 1. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed, by the use of experimental data, that both two models used to investigate the hip-flask defence can be used, but only when the hip-flask dose is sufficiently high.

Sickness certification at oncology clinics: perceived problems, support, need for education and reasons for certifying unnecessarily long sickness absences.

Physicians' work with sickness certifications is an understudied field. The aims of this study were to gain knowledge of experiences concerning the sickness certification process among physicians working at oncology clinics. In 2008, all physicians working in Sweden (n = 36 898) were sent a questionnaire concerning sick-listing practices. All respondents working at an oncology clinic (n = 428) were included in the current study. Most of the physicians had sickness certification consultations at least weekly (91.3%). More than one fifth (22.3%) reported that they worked at a clinic with a workplace policy regarding the handling of sickness certification and 61.1% reported receiving at least some support in such cases from their immediate manager. Issuing unnecessary long sickness certificates were related to experiencing delicate interactions with patients and to lack of time. To a moderate degree, further competence was requested regarding: different types of compensation in the social insurance system, responsibilities of the Social Insurance Agency and employers, and sickness insurance rules. The large majority of physicians working in oncology reported regularly having consultations involving sickness certification. Overall, they reported few problems, low level of need for more competence regarding sickness certification, and low frequency of issuing sickness absences for longer periods than necessary.

Sickness certification of patients--a work environment problem among physicians?

BACKGROUND: According to several studies, physicians find sickness certification of patients to be problematic, and some smaller studies suggest that this is a psychosocial work environment problem (WEP). AIMS: To explore to what extent physicians experience sickness certification as a WEP and the associations of this with the type of clinic and other workplace factors. METHODS: Analyses of data from a questionnaire sent to all physicians who were living and working in Sweden. The study group consisted of physicians aged <65 years who performed sickness certification tasks (SCTs). Prevalence rates (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of finding SCTs as a WEP in relation to background factors were calculated. RESULTS: The response rate was 61%. The final study group consisted of 14 210 responders. Half of the physicians (50%) experienced SCTs as a WEP, and 11% found them as a WEP to a great extent. The proportion of physicians experiencing certification tasks as a WEP varied with the type of clinic and were highest in general practice (73%), orthopaedics (68%), rheumatology (67%), neurology (59%) and psychiatry (58%). Using internal medicine as a reference group, the PRs for finding SCTs as a WEP to a great extent were 4.05 (95% CI 3.23-5.09) in general practice, 2.67 (2.05-3.47) in psychiatry and 2.66 (2.04-3.47) in orthopaedics, after adjusting for educational level and frequency of sickness certification consultations. In ear, nose and throat clinics, the PR was 0.43 (0.21-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The findings underline the importance of measures to improve the work situation for physicians regarding sickness certification practices.