International Implementation Research Network in Primary Health Care

This paper outlines the importance of Implementation Research in primary health care and the context in which it operates. The first section gives background to the vital role of implementation research in developing and supporting health care delivery, systems and services, and the importance of closely linking implementation research to primary health care to achieve this. The second section outlines the background, purpose and role of the IIRNPC and to discuss network activities in 2014

APHCRI Dialogue

Through this bulletin, published between 2005 and 2010, APHCRI debated issues applicable to national policy formulation. Issues emerged through national and international media watches, systematic reviews of research, government documents and discussion at workshops and conferences attended by APHCRI staff. They were within one of eight identified areas of interest for APHCRI addressed in the primary health care setting - namely: 1. Chronic disease management; 2. Integration, co-ordination and multidisciplinary care; 3. Prevention and early intervention; 4. Innovative models for comprehensive primary health care delivery; 5. Innovative models for the management of mental health in primary health care settings; 6. Older Australians and health promotion, prevention and post-acute care; 7. Children and young Australians, health promotion and prevention; and 8. Workforce. A topic area was selected for each issue of the publication and was discussed in the bulletin, with room for responses from readers in future issues. It was recognised that issues addressed in the APHCRI Dialogue would at times be controversial. In putting forward the evidence and raising the questions the aim was to facilitate informed debate – not to take a particular ‘partisan’ line. APHCRI Dialogue had regular features examining how issues discussed in the bulletin have been explored in the media, as well as an update on the activities of the APHCRI team during the quarter, including their policy development work, new research grants, the latest research results and policy and information seminars.The Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development Strategy

How do general practitioners manage patients with cancer symptoms? A video-vignette study

Objectives: Determine how general practitioners (GPs) manage patients with cancer symptoms. Design: GPs reviewed 24 video-vignettes and case notes on patients with cancer symptoms and indicated whether they would refer the patient and/or prescribe medication, and/or undertake further investigation. According to available guidelines, all cases warranted a referral to a specialist or further investigations. Setting: Australian primary care sector. Participants: 102 practising GPs participated in this study, including trainees. Interventions: The research was part of a larger randomised controlled trial testing a referral pro forma; however, this paper reports on management decisions made throughout the study. Primary and secondary outcome measures: This paper reports on how the participants would manage the patients depicted in each vignette. Results: In more than one-in-eight cases, the patient was not investigated or referred. Patient management varied significantly by cancer type (p\u3c0.001). For two key reasons, colorectal cancer was the chosen referent category. First, it represents a prevalent type of cancer. Second, in this study, colorectal cancer symptoms were managed in a similar proportion of options—that is, prescription, referral or investigation. Compared with vignettes featuring colorectal cancer participants were less likely to manage breast, bladder, endometrial, and lung cancers with a ‘prescription only’ or ‘referral only’ option. They were less likely to manage prostate cancer with a ‘prescription only’, yet more likely to manage it with a ‘referral with investigation’. With regard to pancreatic and cervical cancers, participants were more likely to manage these with a ‘referral only’ or a ‘referral with investigation’. Conclusions: Some patients may receive a delayed cancer diagnosis, even when they present with typical cancer symptoms to a GP who can access relevant diagnostic tests

Study protocol: national research partnership to improve primary health care performance and outcomes for Indigenous peoples

Background Strengthening primary health care is critical to reducing health inequity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Audit and Best practice for Chronic Disease Extension (ABCDE) project has facilitated the implementation of modern Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) approaches in Indigenous community health care centres across Australia. The project demonstrated improvements in health centre systems, delivery of primary care services and in patient intermediate outcomes. It has also highlighted substantial variation in quality of care. Through a partnership between academic researchers, service providers and policy makers, we are now implementing a study which aims to 1) explore the factors associated with variation in clinical performance; 2) examine specific strategies that have been effective in improving primary care clinical performance; and 3) work with health service staff, management and policy makers to enhance the effective implementation of successful strategies. Methods/Design The study will be conducted in Indigenous community health centres from at least six States/Territories (Northern Territory, Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Victoria) over a five year period. A research hub will be established in each region to support collection and reporting of quantitative and qualitative clinical and health centre system performance data, to investigate factors affecting variation in quality of care and to facilitate effective translation of research evidence into policy and practice. The project is supported by a web-based information system, providing automated analysis and reporting of clinical care performance to health centre staff and management. Discussion By linking researchers directly to users of research (service providers, managers and policy makers), the partnership is well placed to generate new knowledge on effective strategies for improving the quality of primary health care and fostering effective and efficient exchange and use of data and information among service providers and policy makers to achieve evidence-based resource allocation, service planning, system development, and improvements of service delivery and Indigenous health outcomes.Ross Bailie, Damin Si, Cindy Shannon, James Semmens, Kevin Rowley, David J Scrimgeour, Tricia Nage, Ian Anderson, Christine Connors, Tarun Weeramanthri, Sandra Thompson, Robyn McDermott, Hugh Burke, Elizabeth Moore, Dallas Leon, Richard Weston, Haylene Grogan, Andrew Stanley and Karen Gardne

Quality of life of Australian chronically-ill adults: patient and practice characteristics matter

BackgroundTo study health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a large sample of Australian chronically-ill patients and investigate the impact of characteristics of patients and their general practices on their HRQOL and to assess the construct validity of SF-12 in Australia.MethodsCross sectional study with 96 general practices and 7606 chronically-ill patients aged 18 years or more using standard SF-12 version 2. Factor analysis was used to confirm the hypothesized component structure of the SF-12 items. SF-12 physical component score (PCS-12) and mental component score (MCS-12) were derived using the standard US algorithm. Multilevel regression analysis (patients at level 1 and practices at level 2) was applied to relate PCS-12 and MCS-12 to patient and practice characteristics.ResultsThere were significant associations between lower PCS-12 or MCS-12 score and poorer general health (10.8 (regression coefficient) lower for PCS-12 and 7.3 lower for MCS-12), low socio-economic status (5.1 lower PCS-12 and 2.9 lower MCS-12 for unemployed, 0.8 lower PCS-12 and 1.7 lower MCS-12 for non-owner-occupiers, 1.0 lower PCS-12 for less well-educated) and having two or more chronic conditions (up to 2.7 lower PCS-12 and up to 1.5 lower MCS-12 than those having a single disease). Younger age was associated with lower MCS-12 (2.2 and 6.0 lower than middle age and older age respectively) but higher PCS-12 (4.7 and 7.6 higher than middle age and older age respectively). Satisfaction with quality of care (regression coefficient = 1.2) and patients who were married or cohabiting (regression coefficient = 0.6) was positively associated with MCS-12. Patients born in non-English-speaking countries were more likely to have a lower MCS-12 (1.5 lower) than those born in Australia. Employment had a stronger association with the quality of life of males than that of females. Those attending smaller practices had lower PCS-12 (1.0 lower) and MCS-12 (0.6 lower) than those attending larger practices. At the patient level (level 1) 42% and 21% of the variance respectively for PCS-12 and MCS-12 were explained by the patients and practice characteristics. At the practice level (level 2), 73% and 49% of the variance respectively for PCS-12 and MCS-12 were explained by patients and practice characteristics.ConclusionThe strong association between patient characteristics such as socio-economic status, age, and ethnicity and SF-12 physical and mental component summary scores underlines the importance of considering these factors in the management of chronically-ill patients in general practice. The SF-12 appears to be a valid measure for assessing HRQOL of Australian chronically-ill patients.Upali W. Jayasinghe, Judith Proudfoot, Christopher A. Barton, Cheryl Amoroso, Chris Holton, Gawaine Powell Davies, Justin Beilby and Mark F. Harri

What primary health care services should residents of rural and remote Australia be able to access? A systematic review of "core" primary health care services.

BACKGROUND: There are significant health status inequalities in Australia between those people living in rural and remote locations and people living in metropolitan centres. Since almost ninety percent of the population use some form of primary health care service annually, a logical initial step in reducing the disparity in health status is to improve access to health care by specifying those primary health care services that should be considered as "core" and therefore readily available to all Australians regardless of where they live. A systematic review was undertaken to define these "core" services.Using the question "What primary health care services should residents of rural and remote Australia be able to access?", the objective of this paper is to delineate those primary health care core services that should be readily available to all regardless of geography. METHOD: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from established databases was undertaken. Relevant websites were also searched for grey literature. Key informants were accessed to identify other relevant reference material. All papers were assessed by at least two assessors according to agreed inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 19 papers (7 papers from the peer-reviewed database search and 12 from other grey sources) which met the inclusion criteria. The 19 papers demonstrated substantial variability in both the number and nature of core services. Given this variation, the specification or synthesis of a universal set of core services proved to be a complex and arguably contentious task. Nonetheless, the different primary health care dimensions that should be met through the provision of core services were developed. In addition, the process of identifying core services provided important insights about the need to deliver these services in ways that are "fit-for-purpose" in widely differing geographic contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Defining a suite of core primary health care services is a difficult process. Such a suite should be fit-for-purpose, relevant to the context, and its development should be methodologically clear, appropriate, and evidence-based. The value of identifying core PHC services to both consumers and providers for service planning and monitoring and consequent health outcomes is paramount

Multidisciplinary care planning in the primary care management of completed stroke: a systematic review

Background: Chronic disease management requires input from multiple health professionals, both specialist and primary care providers. This study sought to assess the impact of co-ordinated multidisciplinary care in primary care, represented by the delivery of formal care planning by primary care teams or shared across primary-secondary teams, on outcomes in stroke, relative to usual care

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings. Objectives Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community. Review methods We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. Results We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed. Conclusions In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control. Limitations We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers. Future work There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme