Background and purposeThe Kaplan-Meier (KM) method is often used in the analysis of arthroplasty registry data to estimate the probability of revision after a primary procedure. In the presence of a competing risk such as death, KM is known to overestimate the probability of revision. We investigated the degree to which the risk of revision is overestimated in registry data.Patients and methodsWe compared KM estimates of risk of revision with the cumulative incidence function (CIF), which takes account of death as a competing risk. We considered revision by (1) prosthesis type in subjects aged 75–84 years with fractured neck of femur (FNOF), (2) cement use in monoblock prostheses for FNOF, and (3) age group in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA).ResultsIn 5,802 subjects aged 75–84 years with a monoblock prosthesis for FNOF, the estimated risk of revision at 5 years was 6.3% by KM and 4.3% by CIF, a relative difference (RD) of 46%. In 9,821 subjects of all ages receiving an Austin Moore (non-cemented) prosthesis for FNOF, the RD at 5 years was 52% and for 3,116 subjects with a Thompson (cemented) prosthesis, the RD was 79%. In 44,365 subjects with a THA for OA who were less than 70 years old, the RD was just 1.4%; for 47,430 subjects > 70 years of age, the RD was 4.6% at 5 years.InterpretationThe Kaplan-Meier method substantially overestimated the risk of revision compared to estimates using competing risk methods when the risk of death was high. The bias increased with time as the incidence of the competing risk of death increased. Registries should adopt methods of analysis appropriate to the nature of their data.

The results indicate that there is an association between the side of the first hip arthroplasty and side of subsequent knee arthroplasties. Further studies are needed to investigate whether increased risk of receiving an arthroplasty in the contralateral knee is related to having a hip arthroplasty and/or preoperative factors such as pain and altered gait associated with hip OA.

IntroductionAccess to quality healthcare services is considered a moral right. However, for people living in regional locations, timely access to the services that they need may not always be possible because of structural and attitudinal barriers. This suggests that people living in regional areas may have unmet healthcare needs. The aim of this research will be to examine the healthcare needs, expectations and experiences of regional South Australians.Methods and analysisThe Regional South Australia Health (RESONATE) survey is a cross-sectional study of adult health consumers living in any private or non-private dwelling, in any regional, rural, remote or very remote area of South Australia and with an understanding of written English. Data will be collected using a 45-item, multidimensional, self-administered instrument, designed to measure healthcare need, barriers to healthcare access and health service utilisation, attitudes, experiences and satisfaction. The instrument has demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, including good content validity and internal reliability, good test–retest reliability and a high level of acceptability. The survey will be administered online and in hard-copy, with at least 1832 survey participants to be recruited over a 12-month period, using a comprehensive, multimodal recruitment campaign.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia. The results will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, social media, broadcast media, print media, the internet and various community/stakeholder engagement activities.

To determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use at hospital admission and discharge, and the contribution to hospital admission among residential aged care facility residents with and without dementia. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis using data from a multihospital prospective cohort study involving consecutively admitted older adults, aged 75 years or older, who were taking 5 or more medications prior to hospital admission and discharged to a residential aged care facility in South Australia. PIM use was identified using the 2015 Screening Tool for Older Persons' Prescription and 2019 Beers criteria. An expert panel of clinicians with geriatric medicine expertise evaluated the contribution of PIM to hospital admission. Results: In total, 181 participants were included, the median age was 87.5 years and 54.7% were female. Ninety-one (50.3%) had a diagnosis of dementia.

Writing groups for doctoral students are generally agreed to provide valuable learning spaces for PhD candidates. Here an academic developer and the seven members of a writing group formed in a Discipline of Public Health provide an account of their experiences of collaborating in a multicultural, multidisciplinary thesis writing group. We consider the benefits of belonging to such a group for PhD students who are operating in a research climate in which disciplinary boundaries are blurring and where an increasing number of doctoral projects are interdisciplinary in nature; in which both academic staff and students come from enormously diverse cultural and language backgrounds; and in which teamwork, networking and collaboration are prized but not always proactively facilitated. We argue that doctoral writing groups comprising students from diverse cultural and disciplinary backgrounds can be of significant value for postgraduates who wish to collaborate on their own academic development to improve their research writing and communication skills; at the same time, such collaborative work effectively builds an inclusive, dynamic research community.