Co-design of a nurse-led model of care to increase access to medical abortion and contraception in rural and regional general practice: A protocol.

PROBLEM: Women in rural and regional Australia experience a number of barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health care including lack of local services, high costs and misinformation. SETTING: Nurse-led task-sharing models of care for provision of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and early medical abortion (EMA) are one strategy to reduce barriers and improve access to services but have yet to be developed in general practice. KEY MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT: Through a co-design process, we will develop a nurse-led model of care for LARC and EMA provision that can be delivered through face-to-face consultations or via telehealth in rural general practice in Australia. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE: A co-design workshop, involving consumers, health professionals (particularly General Practitioners (GPs) and Practice Nurses (PNs)), GP managers and key stakeholders will be conducted to design nurse-led models of care for LARC and EMA including implant insertion by nurses. The workshop will be informed by the 'Experience-Based Co-Design' toolkit and involves participants mapping the patient journey for service provision to inform a new model of care. EFFECTS OF CHANGE: Recommendations from the workshop will inform a nurse-led model of care for LARC and EMA provision in rural general practice. The model will provide practical guidance for the set-up and delivery of services. LESSONS LEARNT: Nurses will work to their full scope of practice to increase accessibility of EMA and LARC in rural Australia

Improving rural and regional access to long-acting reversible contraception and medical abortion through nurse-led models of care, task-sharing and telehealth (ORIENT): a protocol for a stepped-wedge pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial in Australian general practice

INTRODUCTION: Women living in rural and regional Australia often experience difficulties in accessing long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and medical abortion services. Nurse-led models of care can improve access to these services but have not been evaluated in Australian general practice. The primary aim of the ORIENT trial (ImprOving Rural and regIonal accEss to long acting reversible contraceptioN and medical abortion through nurse-led models of care, Tasksharing and telehealth) is to assess the effectiveness of a nurse-led model of care in general practice at increasing uptake of LARC and improving access to medical abortion in rural and regional areas. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ORIENT is a stepped-wedge pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. We will enrol 32 general practices (clusters) in rural or regional Australia, that have at least two general practitioners, one practice nurse and one practice manager. The nurse-led model of care (the intervention) will be codesigned with key women's health stakeholders. Clusters will be randomised to implement the model sequentially, with the comparator being usual care. Clusters will receive implementation support through clinical upskilling, educational outreach and engagement in an online community of practice. The primary outcome is the change in the rate of LARC prescribing comparing control and intervention phases; secondary outcomes include change in the rate of medical abortion prescribing and provision of related telehealth services. A within-trial economic analysis will determine the relative costs and benefits of the model on the prescribing rates of LARC and medical abortion compared with usual care. A realist evaluation will provide contextual information regarding model implementation informing considerations for scale-up. Supporting nurses to work to their full scope of practice has the potential to increase LARC and medical abortion access in rural and regional Australia. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 29476). Findings will be disseminated via multiple avenues including a knowledge exchange workshop, policy briefs, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000086763)

Better than nothing? Patient-delivered partner therapy and partner notification for chlamydia: the views of Australian general practitioners

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Genital chlamydia is the most commonly notified sexually transmissible infection (STI) in Australia and worldwide and can have serious reproductive health outcomes. Partner notification, testing and treatment are important facets of chlamydia control. Traditional methods of partner notification are not reaching enough partners to effectively control transmission of chlamydia. Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) has been shown to improve the treatment of sexual partners. In Australia, General Practitioners (GPs) are responsible for the bulk of chlamydia testing, diagnosis, treatment and follow up. This study aimed to determine the views and practices of Australian general practitioners (GPs) in relation to partner notification and PDPT for chlamydia and explored GPs' perceptions of their patients' barriers to notifying partners of a chlamydia diagnosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 general practitioners (GPs) from rural, regional and urban Australia from November 2006 to March 2007. Topics covered: GPs' current practice and views about partner notification, perceived barriers and useful supports, previous use of and views regarding PDPT.</p> <p>Transcripts were imported into NVivo7 and subjected to thematic analysis. Data saturation was reached after 32 interviews had been completed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Perceived barriers to patients telling partners (patient referral) included: stigma; age and cultural background; casual or long-term relationship, ongoing relationship or not. Barriers to GPs undertaking partner notification (provider referral) included: lack of time and staff; lack of contact details; uncertainty about the legality of contacting partners and whether this constitutes breach of patient confidentiality; and feeling both personally uncomfortable and inadequately trained to contact someone who is not their patient. GPs were divided on the use of PDPT - many felt concerned that it is not best clinical practice but many also felt that it is better than nothing.</p> <p>GPs identified the following factors which they considered would facilitate partner notification: clear clinical guidelines; a legal framework around partner notification; a formal chlamydia screening program; financial incentives; education and practical support for health professionals, and raising awareness of chlamydia in the community, in particular amongst young people.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>GPs reported some partners do not seek medical treatment even after they are notified of being a sexual contact of a patient with chlamydia. More routine use of PDPT may help address this issue however GPs in this study had negative attitudes to the use of PDPT. Appropriate guidelines and legislation may make the use of PDPT more acceptable to Australian GPs.</p

Experiences and outcomes of partner notification among men and women recently diagnosed with chlamydia and their views on innovative resources aimed at improving notification rates

Objective: To describe the partner notification experiences of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia and to determine what supports might best assist them. Goal: To determine what supports might best assist chlamydia infected individuals to notify their partners. Study Design: A telephone survey was undertaken with men and women recently diagnosed with chlamydia across 3 Australian jurisdictions between August 2007 and January 2008. Results: Of the 286 individuals who agreed to be contacted about the study, 202 (71%) completed the survey. Twenty-three percent (333/1458) of recent partners were notified: men who had sex with men (MSM) notified 15% (133/880) of their partners, heterosexual men 31% (114/370), and women 46% (86/188) of their partners (P < 0.001). Overall, 84% (169/202) of individuals notified at least one partner. The main reasons for informing partners were out of concern for them (44%) or because it was considered "the right thing to do" (37%). The preferred methods for contacting partners were telephone (52%) and face-to-face (30%). Email (8%) and short message service (SMS) (11%) were less commonly used; however, if offered a website with anonymous email and SMS services, nearly half of individuals indicated they would find this useful. Of those who had not informed all partners with known contact details (n = 94), 34% reported that if web-based tools were available they would have contacted more partners. Over half of participants would like to have been given antibiotics to give to their partner. Conclusion: The availability of tailored resources may assist in improving partner notification for chlamydia

Innovative resources could help improve partner notification for chlamydia in primary care

Objective:\ud To examine practices of general practitioners' (GPs) in relation to partner notification for chlamydia and identify the supports they would find most useful to assist them.\ud \ud Goal:\ud To identify innovative resources that could improve partner notification for chlamydia in primary care.\ud \ud Study Design:\ud A postal survey was undertaken that involved GPs from several jurisdictions across Australia between August and December 2007. GPs were randomly selected from a national database.\ud \ud Results:\ud Of 521 eligible GPs, 234 (45%) returned a completed questionnaire. Ninety-five percent (n = 223) felt that it was their role to discuss partner notification with patients diagnosed with chlamydia; however, only 45% (105/232) were sure how best to assist their patients with this. Considerable variation was shown in the way partner notification was undertaken, including how far back in time GPs recommended contacting partners. GPs considered a wide range of possible resources useful, including a website supporting patients (90%), information sheets generated by practice software when chlamydia is diagnosed (90%), printed information packs for patients (85%), a website designed to assist GPs (80%), and referral to these websites via positive laboratory results (85%). Forty-three percent currently undertook patient delivered partner therapy for chlamydia.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud GPs want and need greater guidance and resources to assist them with partner notification for chlamydia. Resources utilizing the internet and practice software and mechanisms where GPs are automatically directed to these when chlamydia is diagnosed have wide appeal and the potential to improve the effectiveness of partner notification for chlamydia