Search

Background: In Australia, dementia is a national health priority. With the rising number of people living with dementia and shortage of formal and informal carers predicted in the near future, developing approaches to coordinating services in quality-focused ways is considered an urgent priority. Key worker support models are one approach that have been used to assist people living with dementia and their caring unit coordinate services and navigate service systems; however, there is limited literature outlining comprehensive frameworks for the implementation of community dementia key worker roles in practice. In this paper an optimised key worker framework for people with dementia, their family and caring unit living in the community is developed and presented.Methods: A number of processes were undertaken to inform the development of a co-designed optimised key worker framework: an expert working and reference group; a systematic review of the literature; and a qualitative evaluation of 14 dementia key worker models operating in Australia involving 14 interviews with organisation managers, 19 with key workers and 15 with people living with dementia and/or their caring unit. Data from the systematic review and evaluation of dementia key worker models were analysed by the researchers and the expert working and reference group using a constant comparative approach to define the essential components of the optimised framework.Results: The developed framework consisted of four main components: overarching philosophies; organisational context; role definition; and key worker competencies. A number of more clearly defined sub-themes sat under each component. Reflected in the framework is the complexity of the dementia journey and the difficulty in trying to develop a 'one size fits all' approach.Conclusions: This co-designed study led to the development of an evidence based framework which outlines a comprehensive synthesis of components viewed as being essential to the implementation of a dementia key worker model of care in the community. The framework was informed and endorsed by people living with dementia and their caring unit, key workers, managers, Australian industry experts, policy makers and researchers. An evaluation of its effectiveness and relevance for practice within the dementia care space is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is the eighth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for disinvestment within a large Australian health service. One of the aims was to explore methods to deliver existing high quality synthesised evidence directly to decision-makers to drive decision-making proactively. An Evidence Dissemination Service (EDS) was proposed. While this was conceived as a method to identify disinvestment opportunities, it became clear that it could also be a way to review all practices for consistency with current evidence. This paper reports the development, implementation and evaluation of two models of an in-house EDS.Methods: Frameworks for development of complex interventions, implementation of evidence-based change, and evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes were adapted and/or applied. Mixed methods including a literature review, surveys, interviews, workshops, audits, document analysis and action research were used to capture barriers, enablers and local needs; identify effective strategies; develop and refine proposals; ascertain feedback and measure outcomes.Results: Methods to identify, capture, classify, store, repackage, disseminate and facilitate use of synthesised research evidence were investigated. In Model 1, emails containing links to multiple publications were sent to all self-selected participants who were asked to determine whether they were the relevant decision-maker for any of the topics presented, whether change was required, and to take the relevant action. This voluntary framework did not achieve the aim of ensuring practice was consistent with current evidence. In Model 2, the need for change was established prior to dissemination, then a summary of the evidence was sent to the decision-maker responsible for practice in the relevant area who was required to take appropriate action and report the outcome. This mandatory governance framework was successful. The factors influencing decisions, processes and outcomes were identified.Conclusion: An in-house EDS holds promise as a method of identifying disinvestment opportunities and/or reviewing local practice for consistency with current evidence. The resource-intensive nature of delivery of the EDS is a potential barrier. The findings from this study will inform further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited information is available regarding the profile and clinical practice characteristics of the osteopathy workforce in Australia. This paper reports such information by analysing data from a nationally-representative sample of Australian osteopaths.Methods: Data was obtained from a workforce survey of Australian osteopathy, investigating the characteristics of the practitioner, their practice, clinical management features and perceptions regarding research. The survey questionnaire was distributed to all registered osteopaths across Australia in 2016 as part of the Osteopathy Research and Innovation Network (ORION) project.Results: A total of 992 Australian osteopaths participated in this study representing a response rate of 49.1%. The average age of the participants was 38.0 years with 58.1% being female and the majority holding a Bachelor or higher degree qualification related to the osteopathy professional. Approximately 80.0% of the osteopaths were practicing in an urban area, with most osteopaths working in multi-practitioner locations, having referral relationships with a range of health care practitioners, managing patients a number of musculoskeletal disorders, and providing multi-model treatment options.Conclusions: A total of 3.9 million patients were estimated to consult with osteopaths every year and an average of approximate 3.0 million hours were spent delivering osteopathy services per year. Further research is required to provide rich, in-depth examination regarding a range of osteopathy workforce issues which will help ensure safe, effective patient care to all receiving and providing treatments as part of the broader Australian health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]