Search

Background: Providing healthcare in a remote or rural setting can be complex and difficult, with many remote area nurses not receiving sufficient orientation or preparation. This is particularly important for the management of medicines. Aim: This analysis evaluates an online medicines safety course called Pharmacotherapeutics for Remote Area Nurses. Study Design and Methods: Eight cohorts of students (n=629), between 2016-2020, were included in the evaluation. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate the impact of the online pharmacotherapeutics course. At the end of each module and at the end of the course participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire. In-depth semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (n=9) were also conducted, and data thematically analysed. Results: The online pharmacotherapeutics course was well received (average of 4.3 on a 5-point Likert scale). It was easy to navigate (2.6 on a 3-point Likert scale), the flow was logical (2.8 on a 3-point Likert scale) and it was clear how to achieve learning outcomes (2.8 on a 3-point Likert scale). The learning content in each of the modules were well received (4.1-4.5 on a 5-point Likert scale) and deemed appropriate for nurses practicing in the remote areas (2.7-2.9 on a 3-point Likert scale). Thematic analysis of the stakeholder interviews and participant surveys revealed the pharmacotherapeutics course improved knowledge, confidence, and competence of nurses in relation to medicines management and results in better preparedness of the remote health workforce. Key stakeholder feedback highlighted that the pharmacotherapeutics course was seen as an important part of preparing and upskilling the remote health workforce. Discussion: Overall, the pharmacotherapeutics course was well received by nurses and key informants. It improved self-reported knowledge, confidence, competence, and preparedness for nursing practice in remote locations. Conclusion: The continued support of professional development and education for the remote health workforce is vital to ensure optimum patient care. What is already known about this topic? * People in remote Australia generally experience poorer health and face increased challenges in accessing care compared with major city counterparts. * In remote regions, access to healthcare services is reliant on the availability of a competent workforce with nurses forming the backbone of rural and remote primary care. * The use of medications is the most common intervention in healthcare and improvements in the quality use of medicines can have significant benefits to a person's wellbeing. What this paper adds: * Professional development and education for the remote health workforce is vital to ensure optimum patient care. * Education that is appropriate, relevant, and accessible can increase self-assessed knowledge, competence, and confidence in relation to medicines management. * Online education that is developed in collaboration with stakeholders and addresses an identified need is an acceptable and accessible method of providing professional development to the remote health workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Home telemonitoring has been used as a solution to support the care of individuals living with chronic disease. While effectiveness of telemonitoring have been widely studied, more research is needed to understand the perceptions among patients and clinicians in incorporating telemonitoring into their daily routine and practices. This paper presents an investigation of patients’ and clinicians’ experiences in a care augmenting telemonitoring service, their perceived impact delivered through the service, and clinicians’ perceptions on how the service was introduced in their organizations. This work was embedded in a large multi-site trial of home telemonitoring using a mixed method approach for evaluation. Interviews with clinicians involved in the study were conducted at multiple time points during the trial. Questionnaires were administered to clinicians and patients at the end of the trial. Results showed that both patients and clinicians recognized the benefits of patient empowerment through telemonitoring, and patient-clinician interactions. Results identified the needs of a dedicated telemonitoring clinical care coordinator role, guidelines that translate telemonitoring services into clinical pathways and engagement of different healthcare providers, especially general practitioners, to support the integration of telemonitoring into chronic disease management programs and long-term organizational strategic plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reassessment intervals are unclear, potentially leading to detrimental practice variation: too frequent can result in overtreatment and greater strain on the healthcare system; too infrequent could result in the neglect of high risk patients who require medication. This study aimed to understand the different factors that general practitioners (GPs) consider when deciding on the reassessment interval for patients previously assessed for primary CVD risk. Methods: This paper combines quantitative and qualitative data regarding reassessment intervals from two separate studies of CVD risk management. Experimental study: 144 Australian GPs viewed a random selection of hypothetical cases via a paper-based questionnaire, in which blood pressure, cholesterol and 5-year absolute risk (AR) were systematically varied to appear lower or higher. GPs were asked how they would manage each case, including an open-ended response for when they would reassess the patient. Interview study: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 25 Australian GPs, recruited separately from the GPs in the experimental study. Transcribed audio-recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method. Results: Experiment: GPs stated that they would reassess the majority of patients across all absolute risk categories in 6 months or less (low AR = 52 % [CI95% =47-57 %], moderate AR = 82 % [CI95% = 76-86 %], high AR = 87 % [CI95% = 82-90 %], total = 71 % [CI95% = 67-75 %]), with 48 % (CI95% = 43-53 %) of patients reassessed in under 3 months. The majority (75 % [CI95% = 70-79 %]) of patients with low-moderate AR (≤15 %) and an elevated risk factor would be reassessed in under 6 months. Interviews: GPs identified different functions for reassessment and risk factor monitoring, which affected recommended intervals. These included perceived psychosocial benefits to patients, preparing the patient for medication, and identifying barriers to lifestyle change and medication adherence. Reassessment and monitoring intervals were driven by patient motivation to change lifestyle, patient demand, individual risk factors, and GP attitudes. Conclusions: There is substantial variation in reassessment intervals for patients with the same risk profile. This suggests that GPs are not following reassessment recommendations in the Australian guidelines. The use of shorter intervals for low-moderate AR contradicts research on optimal monitoring intervals, and may result in unnecessary costs and over-treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]