Context matters for primary health care access: a multi-method comparative study of contextual influences on health service access arrangements across models of primary health care

© The Author(s). 2018 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Abstract Background Equitable access to primary health care (PHC) is an important component of integrated chronic disease management. Whilst context is known to influence access to PHC, it is poorly researched. The aim of this study was to determine the contextual influences associated with access arrangements in four Australian models of integrated PHC. Methods A multi-method comparative case study design. Purposive sampling identified four models of PHC across six sites in two Australian states. Complexity theory informed the choice of contextual factors that influenced access arrangements, which were analysed across five dimensions: availability and accommodation, affordability, acceptability, appropriateness and approachability. Semi-structured interviews, document/website analysis and non-participant observation were used to collect data from clinicians, administrative staff and other key stakeholders. Within and cross-case thematic analysis identified interactions between context and access across sites. Results Overall, financial viability, objectives of the PHC model and relationships with the local hospital network (LHN) underpinned access arrangements. Local supply of general practitioners and financial viability were strong influences on availability of after-hours services. Influences on affordability were difficult to determine because all models had nil/low out-of-pocket costs for general practitioner services. The biggest influence on acceptability was the goal/objectives of the PHC model. Appropriateness and to a lesser degree affordability arrangements were influenced by the relationship with the LHN. The provision of regular outreach services was strongly influenced by perceived population need, referral networks and model objectives. Conclusions These findings provide valuable insights for policy makers charged with improving access arrangements in PHC services. A financially sustainable service underpins attempts to improve access that meets the needs of the service population. Smaller services may lack infrastructure and capacity, suggesting there may be a minimum size for enhancing access. Access arrangements may be facilitated by aligning the objectives between PHC, LHN and other stakeholder models. While some access arrangements are relatively easy to modify, improving resource intensive (e.g. acceptability) access arrangements for vulnerable and/or chronic disease populations will require federal and state policy levers with input from primary health networks and LHNs

An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes: Evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care. Methods: PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40 69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar's test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores. Results: Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group (p = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes. Conclusions: The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012

An Australian general practice based strategy to improve chronic disease prevention, and its impact on patient reported outcomes: evaluation of the preventive evidence into practice cluster randomised controlled trial

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background Implementing evidence-based chronic disease prevention with a practice-wide population is challenging in primary care. Methods PEP Intervention practices received education, clinical audit and feedback and practice facilitation. Patients (40‑69 years) without chronic disease from trial and control practices were invited to participate in baseline and 12 month follow up questionnaires. Patient-recalled receipt of GP services and referral, and the proportion of patients at risk were compared over time and between intervention and control groups. Mean difference in BMI, diet and physical activity between baseline and follow up were calculated and compared using a paired t-test. Change in the proportion of patients meeting the definition for physical activity diet and weight risk was calculated using McNemar’s test and multilevel analysis was used to determine the effect of the intervention on follow-up scores. Results Five hundred eighty nine patients completed both questionnaires. No significant changes were found in the proportion of patients reporting a BP, cholesterol, glucose or weight check in either group. Less than one in six at-risk patients reported receiving lifestyle advice or referral at baseline with little change at follow up. More intervention patients reported attempts to improve their diet and reduce weight. Mean score improved for diet in the intervention group (p = 0.04) but self-reported BMI and PA risk did not significantly change in either group. There was no significant change in the proportion of patients who reported being at-risk for diet, PA or weight, and no changes in PA, diet and BMI in multilevel linear regression adjusted for patient age, sex, practice size and state. There was good fidelity to the intervention but practices varied in their capacity to address changes. Conclusions The lack of measurable effect within this trial may be attributable to the complexities around behaviour change and/or system change. This trial highlights some of the challenges in providing suitable chronic disease preventive interventions which are both scalable to whole practice populations and meet the needs of diverse practice structures

An investigation of barriers and enablers to advanced nursing roles in Australian general practice

Over the past decade, there has been substantial increase in nurses' roles in primary health care, particularly in general practice settings. Simultaneously, there has been an expansion of advanced roles for nurses across a range of clinical environments. This paper draws upon findings from a study that sought to develop a framework to support development of advanced nursing roles in general practice. It presents findings from one part of that study that explored barriers and facilitators to the development of these roles. Twenty-three key leaders from nursing, general practice and professional organisations participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. A range of factors was identified as key to developing advanced roles in general practice. These included increasing awareness and attractiveness of practice nursing, health reform activities, practice limitations, education and professional development.Understanding complex systems and workforce issues is required to promote active intervention that can facilitate development of advanced nursing roles in Australian general practice

An investigation of barriers and enablers to advanced nursing roles in Australian general practice

Over the past decade, there has been substantial increase in nurses\u27 roles in primary health care, particularly in general practice settings. Simultaneously, there has been an expansion of advanced roles for nurses across a range of clinical environments. This paper draws upon findings from a study that sought to develop a framework to support development of advanced nursing roles in general practice. It presents findings from one part of that study that explored barriers and facilitators to the development of these roles. Twenty-three key leaders from nursing, general practice and professional organisations participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. A range of factors was identified as key to developing advanced roles in general practice. These included increasing awareness and attractiveness of practice nursing, health reform activities, practice limitations, education and professional development. Understanding complex systems and workforce issues is required to promote active intervention that can facilitate development of advanced nursing roles in Australian general practice

Advancing general practice nursing in Australia: Roles and responsibilities of primary healthcare organisations

Objectives Given increased numbers and enhanced responsibilities of Australian general practice nurses, we aimed to delineate appropriate roles for primary health care organisations (PHCOs) to support this workforce. Methods A two-round online Delphi consensus process was undertaken between January and June 2012, informed by literature review and key informant interviews. Participants were purposively selected and included decision makers from government and professional organisations, educators, researchers and clinicians from five Australian states and territories Results Of 56 invited respondents, 35 (62%) and 31 (55%) responded to the first and second invitation respectively. Participants reached consensus on five key roles for PHCOs in optimising nursing in general practice: (1) matching workforce size and skills to population needs; (2) facilitating leadership opportunities; (3) providing education and educational access; (4) facilitating integration of general practice with other primary care services to support interdisciplinary care; and (5) promoting advanced nursing roles. National concerns, such as limited opportunities for postgraduate education and career progression, were deemed best addressed by national nursing organisations, universities and peak bodies. Conclusions Advancement of nursing in general practice requires system-level support from a range of organisations. PHCOs play a significant role in education and leadership development for nurses and linking national nursing organisations with general practices. What is known about the topic? The role of nurses in Australian general practice has grown in the last decade, yet they face limited career pathways and opportunities for career advancement. Some nations have forged interprofessional primary care teams that use nurses\u27 skills to the full extent of their scope of practice. PHCOs have played important roles in the development of general practice nursing in Australia and internationally. What does this paper add? This study delineates organisational support roles for PHCOs in strengthening nurses\u27 roles and career development in Australian general practice. What are the implications for practitioners? Effective implementation of appropriate responsibilities by PHCOs can assist development of the primary care nursing workforce