Topics

Health occupations

Health occupations Letters 15 April 2019 Free

National healthy skin guidelines for Indigenous Australians: the impact of dog health programs requires evaluation

TO THE EDITOR: Skin disease contributes to the health disadvantage of Indigenous Australians, and the recent publication of the healthy skin guidelines is welcome.1 Scabies is a significant health problem for some remote Indigenous communities, and the healthy skin guidelines describe a series of community‐based scabies control programs. These programs resulted in initial reductions in prevalence of scabies, but they were not sustained, as human scabies was eventually reintroduced.1 The guidelines used a systematic literature review to ensure that all relevant research was included. However, since the review of scabies was limited to studies of human scabies, implications of canine scabies may have been overlooked.2,3 Therefore, a statement such as “dog control programs are of no benefit to the community control of human scabies infestations” requires scrutiny. Canine scabies mites are distinguishable from human scabies mites by genotyping.4 Clinically, canine scabies can cause a transient human infestation, with no ongoing transmission cycle. The lesions of canine scabies occur primarily on body areas that have been in contact with dogs, and are intensely itchy after a shorter period compared with lesions of human scabies. The infestation is self‐limiting unless the person is reinfested.5 As with human scabies, the intense itch from infestation by canine scabies can lead to scratching and skin trauma, providing an entry point for bacterial infection. Complications such as post‐streptococcal glomerulonephritis and chronic renal disease can also arise from canine scabies. Moreover, outbreaks of scabies in humans can be caused by repeated transmission of canine scabies.5 Management of people affected by canine scabies includes treatment of affected dogs and their contacts.3 Comprehensive dog health programs provide broad‐based community benefits, including reduced injuries from dog attacks, improved community and workplace safety, reduced sleep disturbance from barking and fighting dogs, and enhanced dogs’ appearance, behaviour and wellbeing. Dogs are considered family members in some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, sharing housing, bedding and food; hence, human and dog health and wellbeing are intimately linked. No trials have yet examined the impact of dog health programs on scabies transmission in humans or other health outcomes in the remote Indigenous communities where scabies is a public health problem.2 Without evidence from trials, the impact, or lack thereof, of dog health programs on human health is speculative.

Rosalie Schultz

Environmental health Expanding the evidence base in digital health 31 March 2019 Open Access

Gathering data for decisions: best practice use of primary care electronic records for research

Despite most Australians having most of their health‐related interactions in the primary care sector, primary care‐based research is disproportionately low. Access to quality EMR data, lack of resources to remunerate GPs, and a lack of understanding among some GPs of the value and importance of secondary use of EMR data are barriers to data sharing. Data extraction tools that enable ethical, secure and privacy‐protected access to routinely collected datasets nationally have been developed. The task now is to build trustworthy primary care data repositories for research that will provide researchers with timely access to quality‐assured general practice data. Linkage with other datasets could enable significant scale‐up of primary care‐based research in Australia, contributing new knowledge in public health, health promotion, economics and evidence‐based clinical care. Technologies that allow consumers to have greater control over how their data are used can provide better options to policy makers, hence investment in this area is essential. Educating clinicians and the public about the need for, and existence of, research based on de‐identified patient medical records has the potential to generate greater social licence and acceptance of this emerging area of study. This has the potential to generate significant gains in terms of service delivery, economics and patient health. We can “do the right thing” now, but we must never become complacent.

Rachel Canaway · Douglas IR Boyle · Jo‐Anne E Manski‐Nankervis · Jessica Bell · Jane S Hocking · Ken Clarke · Malcolm Clark · Jane M Gunn · Jon D Emery

Health occupations Letters 18 February 2019 Free

Increasing registrations on the Australian Organ Donor Register

To the Editor: Many people are aware that Australia has an opt‐in system for recording organ donation decisions; and many are also aware that, historically, donation decisions were recorded on the driver's licence. What is not well known is that, in 2000, the Australian Organ Donor Register (AODR) was introduced as a register of consent (or objection), and that, between 2005 and 2012, the recording of donation decisions (except for South Australia) was transitioned from the driver's licence to registration on the national register, the AODR.1 Five years on, 53% of the people we surveyed in New South Wales (n = 802) were unaware that donation decisions were no longer recorded on the driver's licence,2 and less than a third of eligible Australians had registered their decision on the AODR.3 The implications of this are profound. Consent to donate by the next‐of‐kin in the intensive care unit is 90% when decisions are registered on the AODR, but only 44% when the decision is unknown.4 We have responded to the need to increase registration rates by developing5 an immediate registration opportunity, which combines the opportunity to discuss donation in a face to face interaction with the opportunity to register on the AODR immediately.2 Participants’ concerns, fears and questions about donation are prompted through a brief survey about organ donation beliefs, which facilitates discussion and allows misconceptions to be addressed. The participants are then asked if they would like to register on the AODR. This initiative has been successful in increasing AODR registrations among the general public at a range of locations in NSW in 2017,2 and we had even higher success rates when we rolled this out in two NSW hospital‐based settings (Box). Integral to the success of the immediate registration opportunity is the consistent finding that the public and health care staff simultaneously hold positive beliefs and negative concerns about organ donation. Addressing the tension created by these dichotomous beliefs through face to face interaction, coupled with the ease and immediacy of on‐the‐spot registration, facilitates the registration decision. We believe that offering the immediate registration opportunity nationally in hospital‐based settings and in the community has the potential to increase registrations in the AODR dramatically. Box – Percentage of participants who registered on the day at the public and private hospitals from particpants who had not yet registered and were eligible to do so

Gail Moloney · Michael Sutherland · Maddison Norton · Alison Bowling · Iain Walker

Mja2 50000
Infectious diseases Letters 18 June 2018 Free

Foreign tick smuggling rickettsia evades Australian border control

To the Editor:Tick-borne infectious diseases, including rickettsial infections, acquired in Australia or after international travel remain a diagnostic challenge.1 A 68-year-old man presented with umbilical pain 10 days after returning from a 2-month camping trip through the south-west of the United States (ie, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah). On examination, a live tick was detected and removed from the patient’s umbilicus (Box). The umbilical pain resolved after tick removal. There was no development of fevers, constitutional symptoms, or rash to suggest a tick-borne illness. Laboratory investigations were unremarkable. He was educated about the signs and symptoms of tick-borne illnesses and prescribed a single dose of doxycycline 200 mg for prophylaxis due to his high risk exposure. The tick was identified as Dermacentor andersoni (Rocky Mountain wood tick), which is endemic to North America and not known to occur in Australia.2 D. andersoni adult ticks are principal vectors of Rickettsia rickettsii (the cause of Rocky Mountain spotted fever), and are associated with transmission of other pathogens to humans, including Colorado tick fever virus and Francisella tularensis (the cause of tularemia).2,3 Although isolated from D. andersoni ticks, transmission of Coxiella burnetii (the cause of Q fever) is uncommon. D. andersoni is not known to transmit Lyme disease.2 Analysis of the tick for rickettsial DNA was positive. No Borrelia DNA was detected. Rickettsia was isolated in cell culture and identified as Rickettsia peacockii based on sequencing of the 17kDa, OmpB, gltA and Sca4 genes. R. peacockii is a member of the spotted fever group of rickettsiae.3,4 The presence of R. peacockii in ticks is correlated with reduced prevalence of R. rickettsii.2,3 R. peacockii is closely related to R. rickettsii, and deletion or mutation of genes, possibly resulting in loss of virulence in R. peacockii, have been identified.3 R. peacockii is not known to be a pathogen of humans or other animals.3,4 Rickettsial serology 10 weeks after the tick bite showed detectable antibodies (titre, 1/256), predominantly to the spotted fever group of Rickettsia, compatible with exposure to R. peacockii identified in the tick. Unfortunately, definitive seroconversion or a rising antibody titre was not able to be demonstrated as no earlier sera were available for parallel testing. Pre-existing antibodies from a distant rickettsial exposure from his tick-prone lifestyle (history of extensive international camping trips) cannot be excluded. The patient remains asymptomatic 9 months later and is still an avid traveller. Tick-borne rickettsial infections in Australia include Queensland tick typhus (Rickettsia australis), Flinders Island spotted fever and Australian spotted fever (Rickettsia honei) and Q fever transmitted by ticks including Ixodes spp., Amblyomma triguttatum and Bothriocroton hydrosauri.1 With increasing international travel, recognition of tick-borne rickettsial diseases is becoming more important. Dermacentor ticks have been detected on livestock exported from North America into Europe.5 This case shows the ability of human ectoparasites, and their potentially pathogenic bacteria, to bypass stringent Australian quarantine controls. Further studies of Australian and imported tick-borne infections are required to increase understanding of these emerging infectious diseases. Box – Dermacentor andersoni removed from the patient’s umbilicus

Sadid F Khan · Mythili Tadepalli · John Stenos · Stephen R Graves · Tony M Korman

Environmental health Letters 6 November 2017 Free

Vaccine myopia: adult vaccination also needs attention

To the Editor:I read with interest the call by Menzies and colleagues1 for revitalised efforts to vaccinate a higher proportion of the adult Australian population against common infectious diseases. At present, the aim of the adult component of the National Immunisation Program is to protect against Streptococcus pneumoniae and the two viruses that cause influenza and herpes zoster — all prevalent pathogens in our environment. In addition to infections derived in Australia, adults are more likely than children to be the focus of imported cases of infection. Exposure of adults to, for instance, tropical infectious diseases, including those transmitted by biting insects (ie, dengue, yellow fever, chikungunya and Zika viruses, malaria, etc), will be far greater than that of juveniles. This is because adults have more reason to travel overseas and typically undertake more trips than children do.2 Vaccine uptake among travellers is mixed, and there are groups that are not sufficiently vaccinated, including people who travel overseas to visit friends and relatives (VFR). These so-called VFR travellers are more likely to consider themselves at low personal risk or threat when travelling to their country of origin, stemming from a sense of familiarity with the destination country and its infectious disease risks.3 Cultural beliefs and language barriers are also important factors associated with suboptimal uptake of pre-travel advice among VFR travellers. While infants accompany their parents for holidays and to visit family abroad, intercontinental travel for business and educational opportunities is largely restricted to adults.4 For typical short stay business trips, rather than for holidays lasting an extended period, it is tempting to neglect being up to date with vaccinations.2 In this instance, for the busy business flyer — often a last-minute traveller — the risk aversion to illness may be suppressed by avoidance of the perceived hassle of immunisation. Travel acts as a vector for spread of infection and many outbreaks are imported into Australia through overseas trips; nevertheless, travellers frequently neglect to seek pre-travel health advice.5 Improving rates of travel vaccination, especially in adults, is one area of focus that may help infectious disease control efforts nationally.

Andrew W Taylor-Robinson

Health services administration Short reports 15 August 2016 Free

Evaluation of the performance and outcomes for the first year of a diabetes rapid access clinic

Diabetes rapid access clinics (DRACs) have been identified by the New South Wales Agency for Clinical Innovation as a key component of an integrated diabetes model of care.1 This cost-effective model provides fast and comprehensive outpatient review and has been shown to circumvent hospital admission, decrease hospital length of stay and improve patient outcomes.2-5 Based on this approach, a nurse practitioner-led DRAC was established in February 2015 at Royal North Shore Hospital (RNSH) in Sydney as a pilot program to assess the suitability of the DRAC for scalability across the Northern Sydney Local Health District (NSLHD). The DRAC is an outpatient clinic, operating on weekdays, which adopts the principle that high-risk patients who present to the emergency department (ED) could be diverted from hospitalisation if they were well enough for outpatient management of their condition (Appendix). Patients are referred from general practice, the ED or the endocrinologist on call and require rapid review (within 72 hours) of complex diabetes problems, such as an episode (or episodes) of severe hypoglycaemia, recurring mild hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia not needing hospitalisation. We prospectively collected data during the first year since inception of the DRAC, with a particular focus on reasons for referral and cost evaluation. The study was approved by the NSLHD Human Research Ethics Committee (RESP/16/62). Within the first year of the DRAC pilot program at RNSH, 61 patients attended the clinic. About a quarter of these patients (n = 15) would have been hospitalised had they not been reviewed at the DRAC and they were successfully managed as outpatients. Although these patients met the criteria for admission, they were deemed appropriate for the DRAC by the endocrinologist on call. In addition, 26% of the patients were referred back to general practice, while the remainder required ongoing endocrinologist review. Most patients presented with hyperglycaemia-related problems (n = 40; 66%; Box), including 15 patients with newly diagnosed diabetes. A further 11 patients presented with severe hypoglycaemia. Within 30 days of review at the DRAC, one patient presented to the ED and required hospitalisation. Using a conservative costing approach, whereby patients were assumed to be uncomplicated with an average length of stay of 2.5 days (based on data from the NSLHD Performance Unit), the cost analysis demonstrated that for 15 patients for whom hospitalisation was avoided, about $46 700 would have been incurred in their inpatient stay. The DRAC was established through a restructure of existing services; however, if nursing costs associated with running the DRAC were included (about $23 400), the analysis showed that the cost of management in the clinic was half the cost of an inpatient stay (Box). A nurse practitioner-led DRAC was successfully established at a tertiary referral hospital in NSW. Our preliminary evaluation has demonstrated improved patient outcomes and assistance for general practice in managing ongoing outpatient diabetes-related problems. In addition, for a quarter of patients presenting to the DRAC, hospitalisation was prevented. Future directions include the expansion of the DRAC across the local health district and the incorporation of a “hotline” to assist general practitioners with urgent and complex diabetes management. Box – Royal North Shore Hospital Diabetes Rapid Access Clinic (DRAC) evaluation: overview of patient demographics and cost analysis data Patient demographic No. of patients* Patients seen (February – December 2015) 61 Male 42 Mean age, years (SD) 56 ± 16 Mean glycated haemoglobin value (SD) 9.7% ± 2.5% Mean duration of diabetes, years (SD) 13 ± 13 Type 1 diabetes 14 (23%) Type 2 diabetes 47 (77%) Reason for referral to DRAC Newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes 2 Newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes 13 Hyperglycaemia 25 Hypoglycaemia (severe) 11 Other 10 Cost analysis No. of hospitalisations prevented† 15 (25%) Hospitalisation cost per day $1245 Average length of stay, days 2.5 Total hospitalisation cost that would have been incurred $46 687.50 Cost of nursing at DRAC $23 339.52 Cost management difference $23 347.98 * Data are number of patients unless otherwise indicated. † One patient sent to the emergency department via DRAC — not diabetes related.

Neroli Newlyn · Rachel T McGrath · Gregory R Fulcher

16 00460

Subscribe to MJA email alerts

No spam, you can unsubscribe anytime you want.

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Thanks for Subscribing! Tell us more

Your email updates will use your name.

Good one! Your updates are coming

Thank you for subscribing to the MJA email alerts. Receive the latest content in your inbox.