Evaluation of rural general practice experiences for pre-vocational medical graduates

Introduction: Despite substantial investment in rural workforce support, sustaining the necessary recruitment and retention of general practitioners (GPs) in rural areas remains a challenge. Insufficient medical graduates are choosing a general/rural practice career. Medical training at postgraduate level, particularly for those 'between' undergraduate medical education and specialty training, remains strongly reliant on hospital experience in larger hospitals, potentially diverting interest away from general/rural practice. The Rural Junior Doctor Training Innovation Fund (RJDTIF) program offered junior hospital doctors (interns) an experience of 10 weeks in a rural general practice, aiming to increase their consideration of general/rural practice careers This study aimed to evaluate the educational and potential workforce impact of the RJDTIF program. Methods: Up to 110 places were established during 2019-2020 for Queensland's interns to undertake an 8-12-week rotation (depending on individual hospital rosters) out of regional hospitals to work in a rural general practice. Participants were surveyed before and after the placement, although only 86 were invited due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive quantitative statistics were applied to the survey data. Four semi-structured interviews were conducted to further explore the experiences post-placement, with audio-recordings transcribed verbatim. Semi-structured interview data were analysed using inductive, reflexive thematic analysis. Results: In total, 60 interns completed either survey, although only 25 were matched as completing both surveys. About half (48%) indicated they had preferenced the rural GP term and 48% indicated strong enthusiasm for the experience. General practice was indicated as the most likely career option for 50%, other general specialty 28% and subspecialty 22%. Likelihood to be working in a regional/rural location in 10 years was indicated as 'likely' or 'very likely' for 40%, 'unlikely' for 24% and 'unsure' for 36%. The two most common reasons for preferencing a rural GP term were experiencing training in a primary care setting (50%) and gaining more clinical skills through increased patient exposure (22%). The overall impact on pursuing a primary care career was self-assessed as much more likely by 41%, but much less by 15%. Interest in a rural location was less influenced. Those rating the term poor or average had low pre-placement enthusiasm for the term. The qualitative analysis of interview data produced two themes: importance of the rural GP term for interns (hands-on learning, skills improvement, influence on future career choice and engagement with the local community), and potential improvements to rural intern GP rotations. Conclusion: Most participants reported a positive experience from their rural GP rotation, which was recognised as a sound learning experience at an important time with respect to choosing a specialty. Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, this evidence supports the investment in programs that provide opportunities for junior doctors to experience rural general practice in these formative postgraduate years to stimulate interest in this much-needed career pathway. Focusing resources on those who have at least some interest and enthusiasm may improve its workforce impact

Routine resite of peripheral intravenous devices every 3 days did not reduce complications compared with clinically indicated resite: a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Peripheral intravenous device (IVD) complications were traditionally thought to be reduced by limiting dwell time. Current recommendations are to resite IVDs by 96 hours with the exception of children and patients with poor veins. Recent evidence suggests routine resite is unnecessary, at least if devices are inserted by a specialised IV team. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of peripheral IVD 'routine resite' with 'removal on clinical indication' on IVD complications in a general hospital without an IV team.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in a regional teaching hospital. After ethics approval, 362 patients (603 IVDs) were randomised to have IVDs replaced on clinical indication (185 patients) or routine change every 3 days (177 patients). IVDs were inserted and managed by the general hospital medical and nursing staff; there was no IV team. The primary endpoint was a composite of IVD complications: phlebitis, infiltration, occlusion, accidental removal, local infection, and device-related bloodstream infection.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>IVD complication rates were 68 per 1,000 IVD days (clinically indicated) and 66 per 1,000 IVD days (routine replacement) (<it>P </it>= 0.86; HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43). Time to first complication per patient did not differ between groups (KM with log rank, <it>P </it>= 0.53). There were no local infections or IVD-related bloodstream infections in either group. IV therapy duration did not differ between groups (<it>P </it>= 0.22), but more (<it>P </it>= 0.004) IVDs were placed per patient in the routine replacement (mean, 1.8) than the clinical indication group (mean, 1.5), with significantly higher hospital costs per patient (<it>P </it>< 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Resite on clinical indication would allow one in two patients to have a single cannula per course of IV treatment, as opposed to one in five patients managed with routine resite; overall complication rates appear similar. Clinically indicated resite would achieve savings in equipment, staff time and patient discomfort. There is growing evidence to support the extended use of peripheral IVDs with removal only on clinical indication.</p> <p>Registration number</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Number ACTRN12608000421336.</p

Cancer Patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of a supportive care screening and referral process

Background: Incorporating supportive care into routine cancer care is an increasing priority for the multi-disciplinary team with growing evidence of its importance to patient-centred care. How to design and deliver a process which is appropriate for patients, clinicians and health services in rural areas needs further investigation. Objective: To (i) examine the patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility of incorporating a supportive care screening and referral process into routine cancer care in a rural setting, and (ii) explore any potential influences of patient variables on the acceptability of the process. Methods: A total of 154 cancer patients and 36 cancer clinicians across two rural areas of Victoria, Australia participated. During treatment visits, patients and clinicians participated in a supportive care process involving screening, discussion of problems, and provision of information and referrals. Structured questionnaires with open and closed questions were used to measure patient and clinician acceptability and feasibility. Results: Patients and clinicians found the supportive care process highly acceptable. Screening identified relevant patient problems (90%) and problems that may not have otherwise been identified (83%). The patient-clinician discussion helped patients realize help was available (87%) and enhanced clinician-patient rapport (72%). Patients received useful referrals to services (76%). Feasibility issues included timing of screening for newly diagnosed patients, privacy in discussing problems, clinician time and availability of referral options. No patient demographic or disease factors influenced acceptability or feasibility. Conclusions: Patients and clinicians reported high acceptability for the supportive care process, although mechanisms for incorporating the process into health care need to be further developed

A review of characteristics and outcomes of Australia’s undergraduate medical education rural immersion programs

Background: A key strategy for increasing the supply of rural doctors is rurally located medical education. In 2000, Australia introduced a national policy to increase rural immersion for undergraduate medical students. This study aims to describe the characteristics and outcomes of the rural immersion programs that were implemented in Australian medical schools. Methods: Information about 19 immersion programs was sourced in 2016 via the grey and published literature. A scoping review of the published peer-reviewed studies via Ovid MEDLINE and Informit (2000-2016) and direct journal searching included studies that focused on outcomes of undergraduate rural immersion in Australian medical schools from 2000 to 2016. Results: Programs varied widely by selection criteria and program design, offering between 1- and 6-year immersion. Based on 26 studies from 10 medical schools, rural immersion was positively associated with rural practice in the first postgraduate year (internship) and early career (first 10years post-qualifying). Having a rural background increased the effects of rural immersion. Evidence suggested that longer duration of immersion also increases the uptake of rural work, including by metropolitan-background students, though overall there was limited evidence about the influence of different program designs. Most evidence was based on relatively weak, predominantly cross-sectional research designs and single-institution studies. Many had flaws including small sample sizes, studying internship outcomes only, inadequately controlling for confounding variables, not using metropolitan-trained controls and providing limited justification as to the postgraduate stage at which rural practice outcomes were measured. Conclusions: Australia's immersion programs are moderately associated with an increased rural supply of early career doctors although metropolitan-trained students contribute equal numbers to overall rural workforce capacity. More research is needed about the influence of student interest in rural practice and the duration and setting of immersion on rural work uptake and working more remotely. Research needs to be more nationally balanced and scaled-up to inform national policy development. Critically, the quality of research could be strengthened through longer-term follow-up studies, adjusting for known confounders, accounting for postgraduate stages and using appropriate controls to test the relative effects of student characteristics and program designs

Demonstrating a new approach to planning and monitoring rural medical training distribution to meet population need in North West Queensland

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.Background Improving the health of rural populations requires developing a medical workforce with the right skills and a willingness to work in rural areas. A novel strategy for achieving this aim is to align medical training distribution with community need. This research describes an approach for planning and monitoring the distribution of general practice (GP) training posts to meet health needs across a dispersed geographic catchment. Methods An assessment of the location of GP registrars in a large catchment of rural North West Queensland (across 11 sub-regions) in 2017 was made using national workforce supply, rurality and other indicators. These included (1): Index of Access –spatial accessibility (2); 10-year District of Workforce Shortage (DWS) (3); MMM (Modified Monash Model) rurality (4); SEIFA (Socio-Economic Indicator For Areas) (5); Indigenous population and (6) Population size. Distribution was determined relative to GP workforce supply measures and population health needs in each health sub-region of the catchment. An expert panel verified the approach and reliability of findings and discussed the results to inform planning. Results 378 registrars and 582 supervisors were well-distributed in two sub-regions; in contrast the distribution was below expected levels in three others. Almost a quarter of registrars (24%) were located in the poorest access areas (Index of Access) compared with 15% of the population located in these areas. Relative to the population size, registrars were proportionally over-represented in the most rural towns, those consistently rated as DWS or those with the poorest SEIFA value and highest Indigenous proportion. Conclusions Current regional distribution was good, but individual town-level data further enabled the training provider to discuss the nuance of where and why more registrars (or supervisors) may be needed. The approach described enables distributed workforce planning and monitoring applicable in a range of contexts, with increased sensitivity for registrar distribution planning where most needed, supporting useful discussions about the potential causes and solutions. This evidence-based approach also enables training organisations to engage with local communities, health services and government to address the sustainable development of the long-term GP workforce in these towns

Geographical classifications to guide rural health policy in Australia

The Australian Government's recent decision to replace the Rural Remote and Metropolitan Area (RRMA) classification with the Australian Standard Geographical Classification - Remoteness Areas (ASGC-RA) system highlights the ongoing significance of geographical classifications for rural health policy, particularly in relation to improving the rural health workforce supply. None of the existing classifications, including the government's preferred choice, were designed specifically to guide health resource allocation, and all exhibit strong weaknesses when applied as such. Continuing reliance on these classifications as policy tools will continue to result in inappropriate health program resource distribution. Purely 'geographical' classifications alone cannot capture all relevant aspects of rural health service provision within a single measure. Moreover, because many subjective decisions (such as the choice of algorithm and breakdown of groupings) influence a classification's impact and acceptance from its users, policy-makers need to specify explicitly the purpose and role of their different programs as the basis for developing and implementing appropriate decision tools such as 'rural-urban' classifications. Failure to do so will continue to limit the effectiveness that current rural health support and incentive programs can have in achieving their objective of improving the provision of health care services to rural populations though affirmative action programs

Dressings and securements for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter failure in adults (SAVE): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial

Background: Two billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are used globally each year, but optimal dressing and securement methods are not well established. We aimed to compare the efficacy and costs of three alternative approaches to standard non-bordered polyurethane dressings. Methods: We did a pragmatic, randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority trial at two hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and required PIVC insertion for clinical treatment, which was expected to be required for longer than 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via a centralised web-based randomisation service using random block sizes, stratified by hospital, to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane dressing, bordered polyurethane dressing, a securement device with polyurethane dressing, or polyurethane dressing (control). Randomisation was concealed before allocation. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were not masked because of the nature of the intervention, but infections were adjudicated by a physician who was masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of complete dislodgement, occlusion, phlebitis, and infection [primary bloodstream infection or local infection]). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000769987. Findings: Between March 18, 2013, and Sept 9, 2014, we randomly assigned 1807 patients to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane (n=446), bordered polyurethane (n=454), securement device with polyurethane (n=453), or polyurethane (n=454); 1697 patients comprised the modified intention-to-treat population. 163 (38%) of 427 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group (absolute risk difference −4·5% [95% CI −11·1 to 2·1%], p=0·19), 169 (40%) of 423 of patients in the bordered polyurethane group (–2·7% [–9·3 to 3·9%] p=0·44), 176 (41%) of 425 patients in the securement device with poplyurethane group (–1·2% [–7·9% to 5·4%], p=0·73), and 180 (43%) of 422 patients in the polyurethane group had PIVC failure. 17 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group, two patients in the bordered polyurethane group, eight patients in the securement device with polyurethane group, and seven patients in the polyurethane group had skin adverse events. Total costs of the trial interventions did not differ significantly between groups. Interpretation: Current dressing and securement methods are commonly associated with PIVC failure and poor durability, with simultaneous use of multiple products commonly required. Cost is currently the main factor that determines product choice. Innovations to achieve effective, durable dressings and securements, and randomised controlled trials assessing their effectiveness are urgently needed

The index of rural access: an innovative integrated approach for measuring primary care access

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The problem of access to health care is of growing concern for rural and remote populations. Many Australian rural health funding programs currently use simplistic rurality or remoteness classifications as proxy measures of access. This paper outlines the development of an alternative method for the measurement of access to primary care, based on combining the three key access elements of spatial accessibility (availability and proximity), population health needs and mobility.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The recently developed two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) method provides a basis for measuring primary care access in rural populations. In this paper, a number of improvements are added to the 2SFCA method in order to overcome limitations associated with its current restriction to a single catchment size and the omission of any distance decay function. Additionally, small-area measures for the two additional elements, health needs and mobility are developed. By utilising this improved 2SFCA method, the three access elements are integrated into a single measure of access. This index has been developed within the state of Victoria, Australia.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The resultant index, the Index of Rural Access, provides a more sensitive and appropriate measure of access compared to existing classifications which currently underpin policy measures designed to overcome problems of limited access to health services. The most powerful aspect of this new index is its ability to identify access differences within rural populations at a much finer geographical scale. This index highlights that many rural areas of Victoria have been incorrectly classified by existing measures as homogenous in regards to their access.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Index of Rural Access provides the first truly integrated index of access to primary care. This new index can be used to better target the distribution of limited government health care funding allocated to address problems of poor access to primary health care services in rural areas.</p

Rural Work and Specialty Choices of International Students Graduating from Australian Medical Schools: Implications for Policy

Almost 500 international students graduate from Australian medical schools annually, with around 70% commencing medical work in Australia. If these Foreign Graduates of Accredited Medical Schools (FGAMS) wish to access Medicare benefits, they must initially work in Distribution Priority Areas (mainly rural). This study describes and compares the geographic and specialty distribution of FGAMS. Participants were 18,093 doctors responding to Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life national annual surveys, 2012&ndash;2017. Multiple logistic regression models explored location and specialty outcomes for three training groups (FGAMS; other Australian-trained (domestic) medical graduates (DMGs); and overseas-trained doctors (OTDs)). Only 19% of FGAMS worked rurally, whereas 29% of Australia&rsquo;s population lives rurally. FGAMS had similar odds of working rurally as DMGs (OR 0.93, 0.77&ndash;1.13) and about half the odds of OTDs (OR 0.48, 0.39&ndash;0.59). FGAMS were more likely than DMGs to work as general practitioners (GPs) (OR 1.27, 1.03&ndash;1.57), but less likely than OTDs (OR 0.74, 0.59&ndash;0.92). The distribution of FGAMS, particularly geographically, is sub-optimal for improving Australia&rsquo;s national medical workforce goals of adequate rural and generalist distribution. Opportunities remain for policy makers to expand current policies and develop a more comprehensive set of levers to promote rural and GP distribution from this group