Search

Background: This is the seventh 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 resource allocation within a large Australian health service. It aimed to facilitate proactive use of evidence from research and local data; evidence-based decision-making for resource allocation including disinvestment; and development, implementation and evaluation of disinvestment projects. From the literature and responses of local stakeholders it was clear that provision of expertise and education, training and support of health service staff would be required to achieve these aims. Four support services were proposed. This paper is a detailed case report of the development, implementation and evaluation of a Data Service, Capacity Building Service and Project Support Service. An Evidence Service is reported separately.Methods: Literature reviews, surveys, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. Existing theoretical frameworks were adapted for evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes.Results: Surveys and interviews identified current practice in use of evidence in decision-making, implementation and evaluation; staff needs for evidence-based practice; nature, type and availability of local health service data; and preferred formats for education and training. The Capacity Building and Project Support Services were successful in achieving short term objectives; but long term outcomes were not evaluated due to reduced funding. The Data Service was not implemented at all. Factors influencing the processes and outcomes are discussed.Conclusion: Health service staff need access to education, training, expertise and support to enable evidence-based decision-making and to implement and evaluate the changes arising from those decisions. Three support services were proposed based on research evidence and local findings. Local factors, some unanticipated and some unavoidable, were the main barriers to successful implementation. All three proposed support services hold promise as facilitators of EBP in the local healthcare setting. The findings from this study will inform further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is the third in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. Leaders in a large Australian health service planned to establish an organisation-wide, systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment. In order to introduce new systems and processes for disinvestment into existing decision-making infrastructure, we aimed to understand where, how and by whom resource allocation decisions were made, implemented and evaluated. We also sought the knowledge and experience of staff regarding previous disinvestment activities.Methods: Structured interviews, workshops and document analysis were used to collect information from multiple sources in an environmental scan of decision-making systems and processes. Findings were synthesised using a theoretical framework.Results: Sixty-eight respondents participated in interviews and workshops. Eight components in the process of resource allocation were identified: Governance, Administration, Stakeholder engagement, Resources, Decision-making, Implementation, Evaluation and, where appropriate, Reinvestment of savings. Elements of structure and practice for each component are described and a new framework was developed to capture the relationships between them. A range of decision-makers, decision-making settings, type and scope of decisions, criteria used, and strengths, weaknesses, barriers and enablers are outlined. The term 'disinvestment' was not used in health service decision-making. Previous projects that involved removal, reduction or restriction of current practices were driven by quality and safety issues, evidence-based practice or a need to find resource savings and not by initiatives where the primary aim was to disinvest. Measuring resource savings is difficult, in some situations impossible. Savings are often only theoretical as resources released may be utilised immediately by patients waiting for beds, clinic appointments or surgery. Decision-making systems and processes for resource allocation are more complex than assumed in previous studies.Conclusion: There is a wide range of decision-makers, settings, scope and type of decisions, and criteria used for allocating resources within a single institution. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report this level of detail and to introduce eight components of the resource allocation process identified within a local health service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are significant health status inequalities in Australia between those people living in rural and remote locations and people living in metropolitan centres. Since almost ninety percent of the population use some form of primary health care service annually, a logical initial step in reducing the disparity in health status is to improve access to health care by specifying those primary health care services that should be considered as "core" and therefore readily available to all Australians regardless of where they live. A systematic review was undertaken to define these"core" services. Using the question "What primary health care services should residents of rural and remote Australia be able to access?", the objective of this paper is to delineate those primary health care core services that should be readily available to all regardless of geography. Method: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from established databases was undertaken. Relevant websites were also searched for grey literature. Key informants were accessed to identify other relevant reference material. All papers were assessed by at least two assessors according to agreed inclusion criteria. Results: Data were extracted from 19 papers (7 papers from the peer-reviewed database search and 12 from other grey sources) which met the inclusion criteria. The 19 papers demonstrated substantial variability in both the number and nature of core services. Given this variation, the specification or synthesis of a universal set of core services proved to be a complex and arguably contentious task. Nonetheless, the different primary health care dimensions that should be met through the provision of core services were developed. In addition, the process of identifying core services provided important insights about the need to deliver these services in ways that are "fit-for-purpose" in widely differing geographic contexts. Conclusions: Defining a suite of core primary health care services is a difficult process. Such a suite should be fit-for-purpose, relevant to the context, and its development should be methodologically clear, appropriate, and evidence-based. The value of identifying core PHC services to both consumers and providers for service planning and monitoring and consequent health outcomes is paramount. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of this paper is to describe the pathways for research impact that have been achieved across several government-funded primary healthcare projects, and the effectiveness of these methods as perceived by their Chief Investigators.Methods: The project used an online survey to collect information about government-funded primary healthcare research projects. Chief Investigators were asked how they disseminated their findings and how this achieved impact in policy and practice. They were also asked to express their beliefs regarding the most effective means of achieving research impact and describe how this occurred.Results: Chief Investigators of 17 projects indicated that a number of dissemination strategies were used but that professional networks were the most effective means of promoting uptake of their research findings. Utilisation of research findings for clinical practice was most likely to occur in organisations or among individual practitioners who were most closely associated with the research team, or when research findings were included in educational programmes involving clinical practice. Uptake of both policy- and practice-related research was deemed most successful if intermediary organisations such as formal professional networks were engaged in the research. Successful primary healthcare researchers had developed critical relationships with intermediary organisations within primary healthcare before the initiation of the research and had also involved them in the design. The scale of research impact was influenced by the current policy environment, the type and significance of the results, and the endorsement (or lack thereof) of professional bodies.Conclusions: Chief Investigators believed that networks were the most effective means of research dissemination. Researchers who were embedded in professional, clinical or policy-focussed intermediary organisations, or had developed partnerships with clinical services, which had a vested interest in the research findings, were more able to describe a direct impact of their research. This suggests that development of these relationships and engagement of these stakeholders by primary healthcare researchers is a vital step for optimal research utilisation in the primary healthcare setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and Objectives. This paper provides an overview of the applicability of the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model to the development of targeted nursing led chronic illness interventions. Background. Changing health care practice is a complex and dynamic process that requires consideration of social, political, economic, and organisational factors. An understanding of the characteristics of the target population, health professionals, and organizations plus identification of the determinants for change are also required. Synthesizing this data to guide the development of an effective intervention is a challenging process. The PRECEDE-PROCEED Model has been used in global health care settings to guide the identification, planning, implementation, and evaluation of various health improvement initiatives. Design. Using a reflective case study approach, this paper examines the applicability of the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model to the development of targeted chronic care improvement interventions for two distinct Australian populations: a rapidly expanding and aging rural population with unmet palliative care needs and a disadvantaged urban community at higher risk of cardiovascular disease. Results. The PRECEDE-PROCEED Model approach demonstrated utility across diverse health settings in a systematic planning process. In environments characterized by increasing health care needs, limited resources, and growing community expectations, adopting planning tools such as PRECEDE-PROCEEDModel at a local level can facilitate the development of the most effective interventions. Relevance to Clinical Practice. The PRECEDE-PROCEED Model is a strong theoretical model that guides the development of realistic nursing led interventions with the best chance of being successful in existing health care environments. [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]