BackgroundIreland is heavily reliant on non-EU migrant health workers to staff its health system. Shortages of locally trained health workers and policies which facilitate health worker migration have contributed to this trend. This paper provides insight into the experiences of non-EU migrant doctors in the Irish health workforce.MethodIn-depth interviews were conducted with 37 non-EU migrant doctors in Ireland in 2011/2012.ResultsRespondents believed they had been recruited to fill junior hospital doctor ‘service’ posts. These posts are unpopular with locally trained doctors due to the limited career progression they provide. Respondents felt that their hopes for career progression and postgraduate training in Ireland had gone unrealised and that they were becoming de-skilled. As a result, most respondents were actively considering onward migration from Ireland.Discussion & conclusionsFailure to align the expectations of non-EU migrant doctors with the requirements of the health system has resulted in considerable frustration and a cycle of brain gain, waste and drain. The underlying reasons for high mobility into and out of the Irish medical workforce must be addressed if this cycle is to be broken. The heavy reliance on non-EU migrant doctors to staff the medical workforce has distracted from the underlying workforce challenges facing the Irish medical workforce.

Costs in the last year of life for patients in receipt of specialist palliative care are considerable. Where inpatient hospice care is available, there are potential savings in hospital costs to offset specialist palliative care inpatient costs. Informal care accounts for a high proportion of costs during the last year of life in each area, underlining the important role of informal caregivers in palliative care.

In the absence of a centralised register, it is not possible to track the number of GPs or practice nurses working in Ireland at present. This is despite the fact that there are twice as many general practice visits per annum compared to hospital visits.

The objective was to evaluate whether routine aspirin 75 mg is more cost-effective than the Fetal Medicine Foundation screen-and-treat approach for preeclampsia prevention in low-risk nulliparous women. A health economic decision analytical model was devised to estimate the discounted net health and cost outcomes of routine aspirin versus Fetal Medicine Foundation screening test–indicated aspirin for a cohort of 100 000 low-risk nulliparous women. Both strategies were compared with no intervention. A subanalysis also compared disaggregated components of the algorithm. The analysis used data from hospital administration, literature, and a randomized controlled trial. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of aspirin adherence, test cost, and accuracy on study results. Presumed rates of preeclampsia were 3.75% with no intervention versus 0.45% with aspirin use. Results found that routine aspirin was the preferred strategy, in terms of greater health gains and larger cost savings. It provided 163 quality-adjusted life-years relative to no intervention, whereas the screen-and-treat policy achieved 108 quality-adjusted life-years. Routine aspirin would result in an estimated cost saving of €14.9 million annually relative to no intervention, whereas screen-and-treat approach would result in a smaller cost saving of €3.1 million. When the analysis was extended to consider alternative screen-and-treat strategies, routine aspirin remained the optimally cost-effective approach. In conclusion, routine aspirin use in low-risk nulliparous women has a greater health gain and cost saving compared with both the Fetal Medicine Foundation and other screen-and-treat approaches.

There was no statistically or clinically significant benefit from the specialized physiotherapy compared to standard neck physiotherapy advice but further trials are warranted.