Delivering care to oncology patients in the community: an innovative integrated approach.

A community oncology nursing programme was developed in Ireland between the hospital and community health services for patients receiving systemic cancer therapy, in response to a service need. A robust evaluation of the pilot programme was undertaken, which found that defined clinical procedures traditionally undertaken in hospitals were safely undertaken in the patient's home with no adverse effects. There was a dramatic decrease in hospital attendances for these defined clinical procedures, and hospital capacity was consequently freed up. Patients valued having aspects of their care delivered at home and reported that it improved their quality of life, including reduced hospital visits and travel time. Community nurses expanded their scope of practice and became partners with oncology day-ward nurses in caring for these patients. Community nurses developed the competence and confidence to safely deliver cancer care in the community. This initiative shows that defined elements of acute cancer care can be safely delivered in the community so long as the training and support are provided. The findings and recommendations of the evaluation resulted in university accreditation and approval for national roll-out of the programme. Integration of services between primary and secondary care is a key priority. This innovative programme is a good example of shared integrated care that benefits both patients and health-care providers.

Ability to pay and geographical proximity influence access to liver transplantation even in a system with universal access.

Ireland, in common with many countries, has a mixed private and public health care system. Concern has been expressed that this system may lead to inequity in access to medical treatment. To investigate this concern, all contacts and first admissions to the national liver transplant unit were identified between April 1, 2000, and March 31, 2002. The effects of private health insurance and area of residence on the likelihood of receiving a liver transplant were assessed. A total of 202 patients were admitted. Forty-three patients from this cohort received a liver transplant (21.3%). Of patients with private health insurance, 17 of 50 (34.0%) were transplanted, compared with 26 of 152 (17.1%) without private health insurance (relative risk [RR] = 1.99; 95% CI, 1.18-3.35; P = .01). For residents of the Eastern (close to the liver transplant unit), patients with private health insurance were no more likely to be transplanted (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.35-2.54; P = 1.0), whereas for residents of other areas, patients with private insurance were 3 times more likely to receive a transplant than those without health insurance (RR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.59-6.08; P = .001). Patients living outside the Eastern region without private health insurance were only half as likely as all other patient types combined to receive a transplant (RR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.92; P = .02). In this study the possession of private health insurance appeared to increase the chances of receiving a liver transplant. Patients without private health insurance living distant from the liver transplant unit appeared particularly disadvantaged. In conclusion, these findings suggest significant inequity in liver transplant allocation in Ireland and deserve further assessment.

Unintentional injury in Ireland: a comparison of mortality and morbidity data.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between mortality and hospital admission data for the leading causes of unintentional injury in Ireland. METHODS: Mortality data were obtained from the Central Statistics Office for the years 1980-1996. Information on hospital admissions was obtained from the Hospital In-Patient Enquiry system for the years 1993-1997. RESULTS: Motor vehicle traffic accidents were the leading cause of unintentional injury death. Falls were the most common cause of unintentional injury hospital admission. Drowning and suffocation had high ratios of deaths to admissions, 2:1 and 1:3, respectively. The ratio of deaths to admissions was 1:39 for all unintentional injuries. CONCLUSION: Neither mortality data nor admissions data alone give an adequate guide to the impact of injuries, but together the two provide a reasonable basis on which to establish policy.