Family caregivers are central to palliative care in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet although supporting caregivers requires a comprehensive understanding of caregiver burden, there has been little research into this topic in Africa. Using the Stress Process Model to investigate the burden experienced by caregivers in South Africa and Uganda, we interviewed 37 caregivers and analyzed the data thematically. Caregivers' primary stressors related to day-to-day patient care and emotional support; secondary stressors included financial hardship, family responsibilities, and social isolation. Caregivers' social, relational, spiritual, and psychological resources mediated the effects of these stressors. Strengthening one resource strengthened others, but the failure of one resource hindered other resources, exacerbating burden. In providing caregiver support, policymakers and service providers should focus on enhancing caregivers' resources as well as alleviating their stressors.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies examine the impact of frailty on long-term patient-oriented outcomes after emergency general surgery (EGS). We measured the prevalence of frailty among older EGS patients and examined the impact of frailty on 1-year outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2008 to 2014 Medicare claims. SETTING: Acute care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 65 years or older who received one of the five EGS procedures with the highest mortality burden (partial colectomy, small bowel resection, peptic ulcer disease repair, adhesiolysis, or laparotomy). MEASUREMENTS: A validated claims-based frailty index (CFI) identified patients who were not frail (CFI < .15), prefrail (.15 ≤ CFI < .25), mildly frail (.25 ≤ CFI < .35), and moderately to severely frail (CFI ≥ .35). Multivariable Cox regression compared 1-year mortality. Multivariable Poisson regression compared rates of post-discharge hospital encounters (hospitalizations, intensive care unit stay, emergency department visit) and home time over 1 year after discharge. All regression models adjusted for age, sex, race, admission from facility, procedure, sepsis, inpatient palliative care delivery, trauma center designation, hospital bed size, and teaching status, and they were clustered by patient and hospital referral region. RESULTS: Among 468 459 older EGS adults, 37.4% were pre-frail, 12.4% were mildly frail, and 3.6% were moderately to severely frail. Patients with mild frailty experienced a higher risk of 1-year mortality compared with non-frail patients (hazard ratio = 1.97; confidence interval [CI] = 1.94-2.01). In the year after discharge, patients with mild and moderate to severe frailty had more hospital encounters compared with non-frail patients (7.8 and 11.5 vs 2.0 per person-year; incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 4.01; CI = 3.93-4.08 vs IRR = 5.89; CI = 5.70-6.09, respectively). Patients with mild and moderate to severe frailty also had fewer days at home in the year after discharge compared with non-frail patients (256 and 203 vs 302 mean days; IRR = .97; CI = .96-.97 vs IRR = .95; CI = .94-.95, respectively). CONCLUSION: Older EGS patients with frailty are at increased risk for poor 1-year outcomes and decreased home time. Targeted interventions for older EGS patients with frailty during the index EGS hospitalization are urgently needed to improve long-term outcomes.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is an essential tool to monitor opioid misuse among patients on chronic opioid therapy. Inaccurate interpretation of UDT can have deleterious consequences. Providers' ability to accurately interpret and document UDT, particularly definitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/ MS) results, has not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether providers correctly interpret, document, and communicate LC-MS/MS UDT results. DESIGN: This is a retrospective chart review of 160 UDT results (80 aberrant; 80 non-aberrant) between August 2017 and February 2018 from 5 ambulatory clinics (3 primary care, 1 oncology, 1 pain management). Aberrant results were classified into one or more of the following categories: illicit drug use, simulated compliance, not taking prescribed medication, and taking a medication not prescribed. Accurate result interpretation was defined as concordance between the provider's documented interpretation and an expert laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Outcome measures were concordance between provider and laboratory interpretation of UDT results, documentation of UDT results, results acknowledgement in the electronic health record, communication of results to the patient, and rate of prescription refills. KEY RESULTS: Aberrant results were most frequently due to illicit drug use. Overall, only 88 of the 160 (55%) had any documented provider interpretations of which 25/88 (28%) were discordant with the laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Thirty-six of the 160 (23%) documented communication of the results to the patient. Communicating results was more likely to be documented if the results were aberrant compared with non-aberrant (33/80 [41%] vs. 3/80 [4%], p < 0.001). In all cases where provider interpretations were discordant with the laboratory interpretation, prescriptions were refilled. CONCLUSIONS: Erroneous provider interpretation of UDT results, infrequent documentation of interpretation, lack of communication of results to patients, and prescription refills despite inaccurate interpretations are common. Expert assistance with urine toxicology interpretations may be needed to improve provider accuracy when interpreting toxicology results.