Increasing resources are devoted to osteoarthritis surgical care in Australia annually, with significant expenditure attributed to hip and knee arthroplasties. Safe, efficient, and sustainable models of care are required. This study aimed to determine the impact on healthcare costs of implementing an enhanced short-stay model of care (ESS-MOC) for arthroplasty at a national level.

Budget impact analysis was conducted for hospitals providing arthroplasty surgery over the years 2023 to 2030. Population-based sample projections obtained from clinical registry and administrative datasets of individuals receiving hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis were applied. The ESS-MOC assigned 30 percent of eligible patients to a shortened acute-ward-stay pathway and outpatient rehabilitation. The remaining 70 percent received a current practice pathway. The primary outcome was total healthcare cost savings post-implementation of the ESS-MOC, with return on investment (ROI) ratio and hospital bed-days utilized also estimated. Costs are presented in Australian dollars (AUD) and United States dollars (USD), at 2023 prices.

Estimated hospital cost savings for the years 2023 to 2030 from implementing the ESS-MOC were AUD641 million (USD427 million) (95% CI: AUD99 million [USD66 million] to AUD1,250 million) [USD834 million]). This corresponds to a ROI ratio of 8.88 (1.3 to 17.9) dollars returned for each dollar invested in implementing the care model. For the period 2023 to 2030, an estimated 337,000 (261,000 to 412,000) acute surgical ward bed-days, and 721,000 (471,000 to 1,028,000) rehabilitation bed-days could be saved. Total implementation costs for the ESS-MOC were estimated at AUD72 million (USD46 million) over eight years.

Implementation of an ESS-MOC for eligible arthroplasty patients in Australia would generate significant cost and healthcare resource savings. This budget impact analysis demonstrates a best practice approach to comprehensively assessing value, at a national level, of implementing sustainable models of care in high-burden healthcare contexts. Findings are relevant to other settings where hospital stay following joint arthroplasty remains excessively long.

Lithium is viewed as the first-line long-term treatment for prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder.

This study examined factors associated with the likelihood of maintaining serum lithium levels within the recommended range and explored whether the monitoring interval could be extended in some cases.

We included 46 555 lithium rest requests in 3371 individuals over 7 years from three UK centres. Using lithium results in four categories (<0.4 mmol/L; 0.40–0.79 mmol/L; 0.80–0.99 mmol/L; ≥1.0 mmol/L), we determined the proportion of instances where lithium results remained stable or switched category on subsequent testing, considering the effects of age, duration of lithium therapy and testing history.

For tests within the recommended range (0.40–0.99 mmol/L categories), 84.5% of subsequent tests remained within this range. Overall, 3 monthly testing was associated with 90% of lithium results remaining within range, compared with 85% at 6 monthly intervals. In cases where the lithium level in the previous 12 months was on target (0.40–0.79 mmol/L; British National Formulary/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria), 90% remained within the target range at 6 months. Neither age nor duration of lithium therapy had any significant effect on lithium level stability. Levels within the 0.80–0.99 mmol/L category were linked to a higher probability of moving to the ≥1.0 mmol/L category (10%) compared with those in the 0.4–0.79 mmol/L group (2%), irrespective of testing frequency.

We propose that for those who achieve 12 months of lithium tests within the 0.40–0.79 mmol/L range, the interval between tests could increase to 6 months, irrespective of age. Where lithium levels are 0.80–0.99 mmol/L, the test interval should remain at 3 months. This could reduce lithium test numbers by 15% and costs by ~$0.4 m p.a.

Catatonia, a severe neuropsychiatric syndrome, has few studies of sufficient scale to clarify its epidemiology or pathophysiology. We aimed to characterise demographic associations, peripheral inflammatory markers and outcome of catatonia.

Electronic healthcare records were searched for validated clinical diagnoses of catatonia. In a case–control study, demographics and inflammatory markers were compared in psychiatric inpatients with and without catatonia. In a cohort study, the two groups were compared in terms of their duration of admission and mortality.

We identified 1456 patients with catatonia (of whom 25.1% had two or more episodes) and 24 956 psychiatric inpatients without catatonia. Incidence was 10.6 episodes of catatonia per 100 000 person-years. Patients with and without catatonia were similar in sex, younger and more likely to be of Black ethnicity. Serum iron was reduced in patients with catatonia [11.6 v. 14.2 μmol/L, odds ratio (OR) 0.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–0.95), p = 0.03] and creatine kinase was raised [2545 v. 459 IU/L, OR 1.53 (95% CI 1.29–1.81), p < 0.001], but there was no difference in C-reactive protein or white cell count. N-Methyl-d-aspartate receptor antibodies were significantly associated with catatonia, but there were small numbers of positive results. Duration of hospitalisation was greater in the catatonia group (median: 43 v. 25 days), but there was no difference in mortality after adjustment.

In the largest clinical study of catatonia, we found catatonia occurred in approximately 1 per 10 000 person-years. Evidence for a proinflammatory state was mixed. Catatonia was associated with prolonged inpatient admission but not with increased mortality.

Lithium was first found to have an acute antimanic effect in 1948 with further corroboration in the early 1950s. It took some time for lithium to become the standard treatment for relapse prevention in bipolar affective disorder. In this study, our aims were to examine the factors associated wtih the likelihood of maintaining lithium levels within the recommended therapeutic range and to look at the stability of lithium levels between blood tests. We examined this relation using clinical laboratory serum lithium test requesting data collected from three large UK centres, where the approach to managing patients with bipolar disorder and ordering lithium testing varied.

46,555 lithium rest requests in 3,371 individuals over 7 years were included from three UK centres. Using lithium results in four categories (<0.4 mmol/L; 0.40–0.79 mmol/L; 0.80–0.99 mmol/L; ≥1.0 mmol/L), we determined the proportion of instances where, on subsequent testing, lithium results remained in the same category or switched category. We then examined the association between testing interval and proportion remaining within target, and the effect of age, duration of lithium therapy and testing history.

For tests within the recommended range (0.40–0.99 mmol/L categories), 84.5% of subsequent tests remained within this range. Overall 3-monthly testing was associated with 90% of lithium results remaining within range compared with 85% at 6-monthly intervals. At all test intervals, lithium test result history in the previous 12-months was associated with the proportion of next test results on target (BNF/NICE criteria), with 90% remaining within range target after 6-months if all tests in the previous 12-months were on target. Age/duration of lithium therapy had no significant effect on lithium level stability. Levels within the 0.80–0.99 mmol/L category were linked to a higher probability of moving to the ≥1.0 mmol/L category (10%) than those in the 0.40–0.79 mmolL group (2%), irrespective of testing frequency. Thus prior history in relation to stability of lithium level in the previous 12 months is a predictor of future stability of lithium level.

We propose that, for those who achieve 12-months of lithium tests within the 0.40–0.79mmol/L range, it would be reasonable to increase the interval between tests to 6 months, irrespective of age, freeing up resource to focus on those less concordant with their lithium monitoring. Where lithium level is 0.80–0.99mmol/L test interval should remain at 3 months. This could reduce lithium test numbers by 15% and costs by ~$0.4 m p.a.

This study examined lithium results and requesting patterns over a 6-year period, and compared these to guidance.

Bipolar disorder is the 4th most common mental health condition, affecting ~1% of UK adults. Lithium is an effective treatment for prevention of relapse and hospital admission, and is recommended by NICE as a first-line treatment.

We have previously shown in other areas that laboratory testing patterns are highly variable with sub-optimal conformity to guidance.

Lithium requests received by Clinical Biochemistry Departments at the University Hospitals of North Midlands, Salford Royal Foundation Trust and Pennine Acute Hospitals from 2012–2018 were extracted from Laboratory Information and Management Systems (46,555 requests; 3,371 individuals). We categorised by request source, lithium concentration and re-test intervals.

Many lithium results were outside the NICE therapeutic window (0.6–0.99mmol/L); 49.3% were below the window and 6.1% were above the window (median [Li]:0.61mmol/L). A small percentage were found at the extremes (3.2% at <0.1mmol/L, 1.0% at >1.4mmol/L). Findings were comparable across all sites.

For requesting interval, there was a distinct peak at 12 weeks, consistent with guidance for those stabilised on lithium therapy. There was no peak evident at 6 months, as recommended for those <65 years old on unchanging therapy. There was a peak at 0–7 days, reflecting those requiring closer monitoring (e.g. treatment initiation or results suggesting toxicity).

However, 77.6% of tests were requested outside expected testing frequencies.

We showed: (a) lithium levels are often maintained at the lower end of the NICE recommended therapeutic range (and the BNF range: 0.4-1.0mmol/L); (b) patterns of lithium results and testing frequency are comparable across three sites with differing models of care; (c) re-test intervals demonstrate a noticeable peak at the recommended 3-monthly interval, but not at 6-monthly intervals; (d) Many tests were repeated outside these expected frequencies (contrary to NICE guidance).