Search

The ward round (WR) is an important opportunity for interprofessional interaction and communication enabling optimal patient care. Pharmacists' participation in the interprofessional WR can reduce adverse drug events and improve medication appropriateness and communication. WR participation by clinical pharmacists in Australia is currently limited. This study aims to explore what is impacting clinical pharmacists' participation in WRs in Australian hospitals. A self-administered, anonymous national survey of Australian clinical pharmacists was conducted. This study describes the outcomes from qualitative questions which were analyzed thematically in NVivo-2020 according to Braun and Clarke's techniques. Five themes were constructed: "Clinical pharmacy service structure", "Ward round structure", "Pharmacist's capabilities", "Culture" and "Value". A culture supportive of pharmacist's contribution with a consistent WR structure and flexible delivery of clinical pharmacy services enabled pharmacists' participation in WR. Being physically "absent" from the WR due to workload, workflow, and self-perception of the need for extensive clinical knowledge can limit opportunities for pharmacists to proactively contribute to medicines decision-making with physicians to improve patient care outcomes. Bidirectional communication between the interprofessional team and the pharmacist, where there is a co-construction of each individual's role in the WR facilitates consistent and inter-dependent collaborations for effective medication management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Coordinating healthcare activities between fracture liaison services (FLS) and primary care is challenging. Using a Delphi technique, we developed 34 consensus statements to support improved care coordination across this healthcare transition. Purpose: Evidence supporting an optimal coordination strategy between fracture liaison services (FLS) and primary care is lacking. This study aimed to develop consensus statements to support consistency and benchmarking of clinical practice to improve coordination of care for patients transitioning from FLS to primary care following an osteoporotic fracture. Methods: A Delphi technique was used to develop consensus among a panel of experts, including FLS clinicians (medical and non-medical), general practitioners (GPs), and consumers. Results: Results of a preparatory questionnaire (n = 33) informed the development of 34 statements for review by expert panellists over two Delphi rounds (n = 25 and n = 19, respectively). The majority of participants were from New South Wales (82%), employed as FLS clinicians (78.8%) and working in metropolitan centres (60.6%). Consensus was achieved for 24/34 statements in round one and 8/10 statements in round two. All statements concerning patient education, communication, and the GP-patient relationship achieved consensus. Expert opinions diverged in some areas of clinician roles and responsibilities and long-term monitoring and management recommendations. Conclusion: We found clear consensus among experts in many key areas of FLS integration with primary care. While experts agreed that primary care is the most appropriate setting for long-term osteoporosis care, overall confidence in primary care systems to achieve this was low. The role of (and responsibility for) adherence monitoring in a resource-limited setting remains to be defined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there is high patient acceptance for clinical staff discussing issues regarding spirituality with hospital inpatients, it is not clear which staff member patients prefer for these discussions. This unique exploratory study investigated inpatient preferences regarding which staff member should raise the topic of spirituality. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with inpatients at six hospitals in Sydney, Australia (n = 897), with a subset invited to participate in qualitative interviews (n = 41). Pastoral care staff (32.9%) were the preferred staff members with whom to discuss spiritual issues, followed by doctors (22.4%). Qualitative findings indicated that individual characteristics of the staff member are more important than their role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aboriginal culture stands as the oldest continuous culture in the world. It gives paramount importance to a harmonious balance between personal connections to the body, spirit, and mind, as well as collective relationships with family, land, and community, integral to the wellbeing of Aboriginal people. However, obstacles can emerge for patients due to language barriers, cultural differences, or a historical lack of trust in the healthcare system. The establishment of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) has undoubtedly improved the healthcare experience for Aboriginal patients, yet there is limited research on the specific approaches utilised by general practitioners (GPs) working in these clinics. Methods: Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with two groups of GPs working in Aboriginal health. Each GP was presented with three scenarios and asked questions related to each scenario. Braun and Clarke's method of thematic analysis was applied to transcribed interviews. Results: Patient-doctor relationship, health literacy, and engagement with the health system emerged as key factors influencing communication with Aboriginal patients. Experienced GPs, despite differing clinical backgrounds, shared concise yet similar ideas to their less experienced counterparts. Notably, experienced GPs prioritised non-medical conversations and mindful body language, emphasising the importance of building strong patient relationships over other consultation aspects. Conclusions: This research provides initial insights for GPs in Aboriginal health, comparing experienced GPs with more than 10 years experience to novices. However, further research involving Aboriginal patients is needed to validate GP strategies and understand their significance from the patients' perspective. Communicating health information can be a challenging skill to clinicians especially when working in Aboriginal health. Despite Aboriginal Health Community Controlled Health Organisations having enriched the experience of Aboriginal patients, there is limited research on the approaches adopted by general practitioners (GPs) working in these clinics. Our research combines thoughts from experienced and novice GPs who worked in Aboriginal Health, and shares some of their experiences related to communicating medical information with Aboriginal patients in this highly complex field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Health-related apps on mobile devices (mHealth apps) have become an effective selfmanagement tool and treatment support for patients. There is limited research, however, on how older people (50 and over) perceive the opportunity of using mHealth apps. Our aim was to investigate the perceptions of older people in Australia regarding the opportunity of using prescribed or doctor-recommended mHealth apps and provide insights which can enhance their uptake of mHealth. Methods. This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews involving 21 participants aged 51-82 years. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to categorise the factors that influence the adoption of mHealth apps by older adults. Results. We show that beyond the prominent influencing factors from technology adoption research (such as performance and effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions), health-specific factors such as a trusting doctor-patient relationship and strong health self-efficacy positively influence the intended adoption of mHealth apps among older adults. In addition, the IT security and accurate interpretation of participants' input in an mHealth app can present barriers to mHealth app adoption. Conclusion. Our analyses provide additional insights complementing existing technology adoption research. Their successful adoption and utilisation require further empirical evidence on its effectiveness along with attention to the voices of those who are meant to use them. To address potential barriers, improve the quality and security of mHealth apps, and thus achieve greater patient safety, the involvement of consumers, regulators and health professionals is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]