Primary care reform using a layered approach to the Medicare Benefits Scheme: unpredictable and unmeasured

The document attached has been archived with permission from the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Justin J Beilb

Attitudes, norms and controls influencing lifestyle risk factor management in general practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>With increasing rates of chronic disease associated with lifestyle behavioural risk factors, there is urgent need for intervention strategies in primary health care. Currently there is a gap in the knowledge of factors that influence the delivery of preventive strategies by General Practitioners (GPs) around interventions for smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption and physical activity (SNAP). This qualitative study explores the delivery of lifestyle behavioural risk factor screening and management by GPs within a 45–49 year old health check consultation. The aims of this research are to identify the influences affecting GPs' choosing to screen and choosing to manage SNAP lifestyle risk factors, as well as identify influences on screening and management when multiple SNAP factors exist.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 29 audio-taped interviews were conducted with 15 GPs and one practice nurse over two stages. Transcripts from the interviews were thematically analysed, and a model of influencing factors on preventive care behaviour was developed using the Theory of Planned Behaviour as a structural framework.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GPs felt that assessing smoking status was straightforward, however some found assessing alcohol intake only possible during a formal health check. Diet and physical activity were often inferred from appearance, only being assessed if the patient was overweight. The frequency and thoroughness of assessment were influenced by the GPs' personal interests and perceived congruence with their role, the level of risk to the patient, the capacity of the practice and availability of time. All GPs considered advising and educating patients part of their professional responsibility. However their attempts to motivate patients were influenced by perceptions of their own effectiveness, with smoking causing the most frustration. Active follow-up and referral of patients appeared to depend on the GPs' orientation to preventive care, the patient's motivation, and cost and accessibility of services to patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>General practitioner attitudes, normative influences from both patients and the profession, and perceived external control factors (time, cost, availability and practice capacity) all influence management of behavioural risk factors. Provider education, community awareness raising, support and capacity building may improve the uptake of lifestyle modification interventions.</p

Effectiveness of moving on: an Australian designed generic self-management program for people with a chronic illness

Background: This paper presents the evaluation of “Moving On”, a generic self-management program for people with a chronic illness developed by Arthritis NSW. The program aims to help participants identify their need for behavior change and acquire the knowledge and skills to implement changes that promote their health and quality of life. Method: A prospective pragmatic randomised controlled trial involving two group programs in community settings: the intervention program (Moving On) and a control program (light physical activity). Participants were recruited by primary health care providers across the north-west region of metropolitan Sydney, Australia between June 2009 and October 2010. Patient outcomes were self-reported via pre- and post-program surveys completed at the time of enrolment and sixteen weeks after program commencement. Primary outcomes were change in self-efficacy (Self-efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-Item Scale), self-management knowledge and behaviour and perceived health status (Self-Rated Health Scale and the Health Distress Scale). Results: A total of 388 patient referrals were received, of whom 250 (64.4%) enrolled in the study. Three patients withdrew prior to allocation. 25 block randomisations were performed by a statistician external to the research team: 123 patients were allocated to the intervention program and 124 were allocated to the control program. 97 (78.9%) of the intervention participants commenced their program. The overall attrition rate of 40.5% included withdrawals from the study and both programs. 24.4% of participants withdrew from the intervention program but not the study and 22.6% withdrew from the control program but not the study. A total of 62 patients completed the intervention program and follow-up evaluation survey and 77 patients completed the control program and follow- up evaluation survey. At 16 weeks follow-up there was no significant difference between intervention and control groups in self-efficacy; however, there was an increase in self-efficacy from baseline to follow-up for the intervention participants (t=−1.948, p=0.028). There were no significant differences in self-rated health or health distress scores between groups at follow-up, with both groups reporting a significant decrease in health distress scores. There was no significant difference between or within groups in self-management knowledge and stage of change of behaviours at follow-up. Intervention group attenders had significantly higher physical activity (t=−4.053, p=0.000) and nutrition scores (t=2.315, p= 0.01) at follow-up; however, these did not remain significant after adjustment for covariates. At follow-up, significantly more participants in the control group (20.8%) indicated that they did not have a self-management plan compared to those in the intervention group (8.8%) (X2=4.671, p=0.031). There were no significant changes in other self-management knowledge areas and behaviours after adjusting for covariates at follow-up. Conclusions: The study produced mixed findings. Differences between groups as allocated were diluted by the high proportion of patients not completing the program. Further monitoring and evaluation are needed of the impact and cost effectiveness of the program. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN1260900029821

Unmet needs of people with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: recommendations for change in Australia

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an increasing cause of mortality. However, people with COPD are unlikely to receive care that meets the needs of themselves or their carers at the end of life. AIMS: To explore the needs of people with end-stage COPD in South Australia and develop recommendations for a model of care. METhODS: Three related studies were undertaken: in Study 1, 15 people with advanced COPD and their carers were interviewed twice, 6 months apart; Study 2 investigated views of an Expert Panel and Study 3 conducted focus groups and interviews with service providers and community groups to examine service availability and accessibility. RESULTS: This project demonstrated that the needs of people with COPD are not being met. There was an absence of a coordinated pathway for support. Care was fragmented, episodic and reactive. The role of carers was poorly recognised. Health professionals identified the lack of a clear transition to an end-stage and significant barriers to obtaining support for activities of daily living. Communication issues were identified in all studies, including the absence of advance care planning conversations. CONCLUSIONS: A flexible model of care is needed that assists people with COPD to navigate the health system. This should be patient centred and coordinated across primary, acute and community sectors. Neither respiratory nor palliative care services alone can adequately support people with COPD. The integration of a multidisciplinary palliative approach within a chronic disease management strategy will be central for the best care for people living with advanced COPD.G.B. Crawford, M.A. Brooksbank, M. Brown, T.A. Burgess and M. Youn

Consumer input into research: the Australian Cancer Trials website

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Australian Cancer Trials website (ACTO) was publicly launched in 2010 to help people search for cancer clinical trials recruiting in Australia, provide information about clinical trials and assist with doctor-patient communication about trials. We describe consumer involvement in the design and development of ACTO and report our preliminary patient evaluation of the website.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consumers, led by Cancer Voices NSW, provided the impetus to develop the website. Consumer representative groups were consulted by the research team during the design and development of ACTO which combines a search engine, trial details, general information about trial participation and question prompt lists. Website use was analysed. A patient evaluation questionnaire was completed at one hospital, one week after exposure to the website.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ACTO's main features and content reflect consumer input. In February 2011, it covered 1, 042 cancer trials. Since ACTO's public launch in November 2010, until the end of February 2011, the website has had 2, 549 new visits and generated 17, 833 page views. In a sub-study of 47 patient users, 89% found the website helpful for learning about clinical trials and all respondents thought patients should have access to ACTO.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The development of ACTO is an example of consumers working with doctors, researchers and policy makers to improve the information available to people whose lives are affected by cancer and to help them participate in their treatment decisions, including consideration of clinical trial enrolment. Consumer input has ensured that the website is informative, targets consumer priorities and is user-friendly. ACTO serves as a model for other health conditions.</p

Multidisciplinary cancer care in Spain, or when the function creates the organ: qualitative interview study

Background The Spanish National Health System recognised multidisciplinary care as a health priority in 2006, when a national strategy for promoting quality in cancer care was first published. This institutional effort is being implemented on a co-operative basis within the context of Spain's decentralised health care system, so a high degree of variability is to be expected. This study was aimed to explore the views of professionals working with multidisciplinary cancer teams and identify which barriers to effective team work should be considered to ensure implementation of health policy. Methods Qualitative interview study with semi-structured, one-to-one interviews. Data were examined inductively, using content analysis to generate categories and an explanatory framework. 39 professionals performing their tasks, wholly or in part, in different multidisciplinary cancer teams were interviewed. The breakdown of participants' medical specialisations was as follows: medical oncologists (n = 10); radiation oncologists (n = 8); surgeons (n = 7); pathologists or radiologists (n = 6); oncology nurses (n = 5); and others (n = 3). Results Teams could be classified into three models of professional co-operation in multidisciplinary cancer care, namely, advisory committee, formal co-adaptation and integrated care process. The following barriers to implementation were posed: existence of different gateways for the same patient profile; variability in development and use of clinical protocols and guidelines; role of the hospital executive board; outcomes assessment; and the recording and documenting of clinical decisions in a multidisciplinary team setting. All these play a key role in the development of cancer teams and their ability to improve quality of care. Conclusion Cancer team development results from an specific adaptation to the hospital environment. Nevertheless, health policy plays an important role in promoting an organisational approach that changes the way in which professionals develop their clinical practice

Multidisciplinary cancer care in Spain, or when the function creates the organ: qualitative interview study

Background The Spanish National Health System recognised multidisciplinary care as a health priority in 2006, when a national strategy for promoting quality in cancer care was first published. This institutional effort is being implemented on a co-operative basis within the context of Spain's decentralised health care system, so a high degree of variability is to be expected. This study was aimed to explore the views of professionals working with multidisciplinary cancer teams and identify which barriers to effective team work should be considered to ensure implementation of health policy. Methods Qualitative interview study with semi-structured, one-to-one interviews. Data were examined inductively, using content analysis to generate categories and an explanatory framework. 39 professionals performing their tasks, wholly or in part, in different multidisciplinary cancer teams were interviewed. The breakdown of participants' medical specialisations was as follows: medical oncologists (n = 10); radiation oncologists (n = 8); surgeons (n = 7); pathologists or radiologists (n = 6); oncology nurses (n = 5); and others (n = 3). Results Teams could be classified into three models of professional co-operation in multidisciplinary cancer care, namely, advisory committee, formal co-adaptation and integrated care process. The following barriers to implementation were posed: existence of different gateways for the same patient profile; variability in development and use of clinical protocols and guidelines; role of the hospital executive board; outcomes assessment; and the recording and documenting of clinical decisions in a multidisciplinary team setting. All these play a key role in the development of cancer teams and their ability to improve quality of care. Conclusion Cancer team development results from an specific adaptation to the hospital environment. Nevertheless, health policy plays an important role in promoting an organisational approach that changes the way in which professionals develop their clinical practice

What are the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination? A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>National cancer policies identify the improvement of care coordination as a priority to improve the delivery of health services for people with cancer. Identification of the current barriers to effective cancer care coordination is needed to drive service improvement.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative study was undertaken in which semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups were conducted with those best placed to identify issues; patients who had been treated for a range of cancers and their carers as well as health professionals involved in providing cancer care. Data collection continued until saturation of concepts was reached. A grounded theory influenced approach was used to explore the participants' experiences and views of cancer care coordination.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 20 patients, four carers and 29 health professionals participated. Barriers to cancer care coordination related to six aspects of care namely, recognising health professional roles and responsibilities, implementing comprehensive multidisciplinary team meetings, transitioning of care: falling through the cracks, inadequate communication between specialist and primary care, inequitable access to health services and managing scarce resources.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study has identified a number of barriers to coordination of cancer care. Development and evaluation of interventions based on these findings is now required.</p