Search

Objective: The choice of whether to admit under a specialist or a generalist unit is often made with neither clear rationale nor understanding of its consequences. The present study compared the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia to either a general medicine or respiratory unit. Methods: This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study using data from public hospitals in Adelaide, South Australia. Over 5 years there were 9775 overnight, unplanned appropriate adult admissions. Patient length of hospital stay, in-patient mortality rate and 30-day unplanned readmission rate were calculated, with and without adjustment for patient age and comorbidity burden. Results: Over 80% of these patients were cared for by a general medicine unit rather than a specialist unit. Patients admitted to a general medicine unit were, on average, 4 years older than those admitted to a respiratory unit. Comorbidity burdens were similar between units at the same hospital. Length of in-patient stay was >1 day shorter for those admitted to a general medicine unit, without significant compromise in mortality or readmission rates. Between each hospital, general medicine units showed a range of mortality rates and length of hospital stay, for which there was no obvious explanation. Conclusions: Compared with speciality care, general medicine units can safely and efficiently care for patients presenting to hospital with community-acquired pneumonia. What is known about the topic?: Within the narrow range of any specific disease, generalist medical services are often cited as inferior in performance compared with a speciality service. This has implications for hospital resourcing, including both staffing and ward allocation. What does this paper add?: This paper demonstrates that most patients admitted with a principal diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia were admitted to a generalist unit and did not apparently fare worse than patients admitted to a specialist service; patients admitted to a generalist unit spent less time in hospital and there was no difference in mortality or readmission rate compared with patients admitted to a specialist service. What are the implications for practitioners?: The provision of generalist services at urban hospitals in Australia provides a safe alternative admission option for patients presenting with pneumonia, and possibly for other common acute medical conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although there is some research on women's choice of birthplace, most of this research has been conducted overseas. This study explored factors influencing the decision to use public or private maternity services within regional Australia. Methods: This cross-sectional study consisted of a community-based, anonymous, online questionnaire focused on factors influencing a woman's choice of birth location and included adult females who had given birth in the past 2 years within two regional areas. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse demographic characteristics and factors influencing decisions regarding birthplace. Pearson's Chi-squared test was used to compare public and private births for multiple variables. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the odds ratio for each potential factor based on whether participants with private health insurance (PHI) elected to birth in the public or private regional hospitals. Open coding was used to group responses to open ended questions into themes. Results: Data from 510 questionnaires were analysed. The three most frequently reported factors influencing a woman's decision about birthplace were financial reasons, the ability to choose their doctor and not having PHI. Women with PHI who opted for birth in the public system were almost four-fold more likely to select access to intensive care services and 2.6-fold more likely to select a preference for a low-intervention birth as one of their top five most influential factors. The results highlight that women want access to midwifery continuity of care. Conclusion: This study provides insights into the factors influencing a woman's complex decision about where and with whom to birth and how health insurance affects that decision, an area where there is a paucity of peer-reviewed literature. This research highlights the importance of being able to choose one's doctor and the desire for access to midwife-led models of care, and provides evidence to advocate for improved access to additional models of care in the private sector. What is already known?: The viability of regional private maternity hospitals is in question because, once the birth rate goes below a certain threshold, providing private obstetric service becomes unviable. Closure of regional private hospitals means less choice in regional areas. Minimal information is available about the factors influencing a woman with PHI to give birth in the public system, and much of the evidence is anecdotal. What does this paper add?: This study provides insight into how PHI status and other factors influence a woman's decision to birth in the public versus private sector, an area where there is a paucity of peer-reviewed literature. It also highlights a desire from women for access to midwifery continuity of care in the private system. What are the implications for practitioners?: This research provides evidence to advocate for improved access to additional models of care, especially for midwifery-led care in the private sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: HealthPathways, pioneered in Canterbury, New Zealand, in 2008, is a web-based tool designed to promote health care integration and patient management in primary care and to reduce fragmentation in the delivery of health services. This cross-sectional study evaluated the utilisation and perceptions of this tool among health professionals in Australia and New Zealand. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered online through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses and managers, nurse practitioners, specialist and community nurses, hospital clinicians, nurses, managers, and allied health professionals between April and September 2018. The frequency of HealthPathways use in the previous month was modelled as an ordered response using an ordered logistic regression model after adjusting for the possible effects of sex, age, years in clinical practice, location and time spent in practice. Results: Health professionals perceived HealthPathways to be useful in primary care management and referral, as well as in the prereferral treatment of patients. GPs in New Zealand, New South Wales and Victoria were 73%, 47% and 27% more likely to have used HealthPathways ≥10 times in the previous month respectively. Conclusion: The results suggest that HealthPathways is having a positive effect on healthcare systems in New Zealand and Australia. However, differences in uptake suggests the need for focused implementation, integration into eReferral software and expanding the tool to medical students, registrars, allied health professionals and potentially patients to encourage behavioural change. What is known about the topic?: Early evaluations suggest that HealthPathways is a useful tool for health professionals, although uptake and utilisation may be limited. However, there is no comparative evidence regarding uptake and implementation of the tool. What does the paper add?: This study is among the first to provide a comparative narrative of the literature assessing the implementation and uptake of HealthPathways across Australia and New Zealand. It is also among the first to compare the perceptions of allied health professionals in the use of HealthPathways across Australia and New Zealand. What are the implications for practitioners?: The results of this study suggest the need for focused implementation, integration into eReferral software and expanding the tool to medical students, registrars, allied health professionals and potentially patients to encourage behavioural change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of the present study was to determine Australian community views on factors that influence the distribution of health spending in relation to medicines. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was performed of 3080 adults aged ≥18 years. Participants were asked to rank, in order of importance, 12 criteria according to which medicines funding decisions may be made. Results: Of all respondents, 1213 (39.4%) considered disease severity to be the most important prioritisation criterion for funding a new medicine. This was followed by medicines treating a disease affecting children (13.2%) and medicines for cancer patients (9.1%). Medicines targeting a disease for which there is no alternative treatment available received highest priority from 8.6% of respondents. The remaining eight prioritisation criteria were each assigned a top ranking from 6.6% to 1.7% of respondents. Medicines targeting a disease for which there is no alternative treatment available were ranked least important by 7.7% of respondents, compared with 2.4%, 1.9% and 1.0% for medicines treating severe diseases, diseases affecting children and cancer respectively. 'End-of-life treatments' and 'rare disease therapies' received the least number of highest priority rankings (2.0% and 1.7% respectively). Conclusions: These results provide useful information about public preferences for government spending on prescribed medicines. Understanding of public preferences on the funding of new medicines will help the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and government determine circumstances where greater emphasis on equity is required and help inform medicines funding policy that best meets the needs of the Australian population. What is known about this topic?: There is increased recognition of the importance of taking into account public preferences in the heath technology assessment (HTA) decision-making process. What does this paper add?: The Australian public view the severity of disease to be the most important funding prioritisation criterion for medicines, followed by medicines used to treat children or to treat cancer. What are the implications for practitioners?: The general public are capable of giving opinions on distributional preferences. This information can help inform medicines funding policy and ensure that it is consistent with the values of the Australian population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Nursing and allied health professionals (AHPs) are in an ideal position to promote physical activity (PA) as part of their health care provision. The aim of this study was to investigate current promotion and knowledge of PA among people in these disciplines. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of practicing Australian physiotherapists, nurses, exercise physiologists, occupational therapists, dietitians and pharmacists was conducted in 2016. Results: A total of 433 nurses and AHPs completed the survey. All disciplines agreed that providing PA advice was part of their role, although nurses were less likely to agree. All disciplines felt they had the skills to promote PA but nurses were more likely to report a lack of time as a barrier. Physiotherapists and exercise physiologists were more confident giving PA advice to patients. Most health professionals (68%) were aware of the PA guidelines, although only 16% were accurately able to describe all relevant components. In logistic regression modelling, women and those working in public hospitals were less likely to encourage PA. Awareness of the PA guidelines doubled the odds of encouraging PA in patients (odds ratio 2.01, 95% confidence interval 1.18–3.43). Conclusions: Australian nurses and AHPs perceive that PA promotion is part of their role, however few have specific knowledge of the PA guidelines. To increase PA promotion by nurses and AHPs awareness of the PA guidelines appears to be essential. What is known about the topic?: Nurses and AHPs are in an ideal position to promote PA, although there is limited evidence of their PA promotion and knowledge. What does the paper add?: Australian nurses and AHPs are confident and think it is feasible to promote PA to patients in several healthcare settings but many lack sufficient PA knowledge, limiting their PA promotion. What are the implications for practitioners?: Increasing PA knowledge of nurses and AHPs could generate increased levels of PA in the Australian population and improve national health and wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Limited international evidence suggests general practice registrars' emergency department (ED) referral rates exceed those of established general practitioners (GPs). The aim of the present study was to fill an evidence gap by establishing the prevalence, nature and associations of Australian GP registrar ED referrals. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was performed of the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study of GP registrars' consultation experiences, between 2010 and 2015. The outcome factor in logistic regression analysis was referral to an ED. Independent variables included patient-level, registrar-level, practice-level and consultation-level factors. Results: In all, 1161 GP registrars (response rate 95.5%) contributed data from 166 966 consultations, comprising 258 381 individual problems. Based on responses, 0.5% of problems resulted in ED referral, of which nearly 25% comprised chest pain, abdominal pain and fractures. Significant (P < 0.05) associations of ED referral included patient age <15 and >34 years, the patient being new to the registrar, one particular regional training provider (RTP), in-consultation information or assistance being sought and learning goals being generated. Outer regional-, remote- or very remote-based registrars made significantly fewer ED referrals than more urban registrars. Of the problems referred to the ED, 45.5% involved the seeking of in-consultation information or assistance, predominantly from supervisors. Conclusions: Registrars' ED referral rates are nearly twice those of established GPs. The findings of the present study suggest acute illnesses or injuries present registrars with clinical challenges and real learning opportunities, and highlight the importance of continuity of care, even for acute presentations. What is known about the topic?: A GP's decision concerning continued community- versus hospital-based management of acute presentations demands careful consideration of a suite of factors, including implications for patient care and resource expenditure. General practice vocational training is a critical period for the development of GP registrars' long-term patterns of practice. Although limited international evidence suggests GP registrars and early career GPs refer patients to the ED at a higher rate than their more experienced peers, these studies involved small subject numbers and did not investigate associations of registrars making an ED referral. Relevant Australian studies focusing on GP registrars' ED referral patterns are lacking. What does this paper add?: The present ongoing cohort study is the first to establish the patterns of ED referrals made by Australian GP registrars, encompassing five general practice RTPs across five states, with participating registrars practising in urban, rural, remote and very remote practices. Several significant associations were found with GP registrars making ED referrals, including patient age, continuity of care, the registrar's RTP, assistance sought by the registrar and rurality of the registrar's practice. What are the implications for practitioners?: The higher likelihood of GP registrars seeing acute presentations than their more established practice colleagues, coupled with a demonstrated association of registrars seeking in-consultation assistance for such presentations, highlights the importance of GP supervisor accessibility in facilitating ED referral appropriateness and in the development of registrars' safe clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper describes the service distribution and models of rural outreach by specialist doctors living in metropolitan or rural locations. Methods: The present study was a national cross-sectional study of 902 specialist doctors providing 1401 rural outreach services in the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life study, 2008. Five mutually exclusive models of rural outreach were studied. Results: Nearly half of the outreach services (585/1401; 42%) were provided to outer regional or remote locations, most (58%) by metropolitan specialists. The most common model of outreach was drive-in, drive-out (379/902; 42%). In comparison, metropolitan-based specialists were less likely to provide hub-and-spoke models of service (odd ratio (OR) 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.46) and more likely to provide fly-in, fly-out models of service (OR 4.15; 95% CI 2.32-7.42). The distance travelled by metropolitan specialists was not affected by working in the public or private sector. However, rural-based specialists were more likely to provide services to nearby towns if they worked privately. Conclusions: Service distribution and models of outreach vary according to where specialists live as well as the practice sector of rural specialists. Multilevel policy and planning is needed to manage the risks and benefits of different service patterns by metropolitan and rural specialists so as to promote integrated and accessible services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aim of this study was to identify perceived barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing across different healthcare settings. Methods. A cross-sectional survey of clinicians in Australian hospitals and primary care was undertaken between June and October 2019. The perceived barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing were considered as dependent variables, whereas age, sex, clinical experience, healthcare setting and the use of guidelines were considered independent variables. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify factors predictive of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Content analysis of free-text responses provided additional insights into the impediments to appropriate prescribing. Results. In all, 180 clinicians completed the survey. Overall, diagnostic uncertainty and limited access to guidelines and prescribing information were significant barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Factors associated with these barriers were clinical experience, care setting (hospitals vs primary care) and the use of guidelines. Experienced clinicians (.11 years) were less likely to consider that limited access to information negatively affected prescribing practices (experience 11-20 years, odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.84; experience .20 years, OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-0.91). Conversely, general practitioners considered diagnostic uncertainty (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.09-1.63) and patient expectations (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.12-1.84) were more likely to be perceived barriers to appropriate prescribing. The use of guidelines and clinical experience may counteract this. Conclusion. Years of experience, use of guidelines and type of setting were predictors of clinicians' perceptions regarding antibiotic prescribing. Our data highlight the importance of individual and setting characteristics in understanding variations in prescribing practices and designing targeted interventions for appropriate antibiotic prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. The aim of the present study was to investigate differences in prevalence, as well as risk and protective factors, for exposure to workplace aggression between male and female clinicians in Australian medical practice settings. Methods. In a cross-sectional, self-report study in the third wave of the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life survey (2010-11), 16 327 medical practitioners were sampled, with 9449 (57.9%) respondents working in clinical practice. Using backward stepwise elimination, parsimonious logistic regression models were developed for exposure to aggression from external (patients, patients' relatives or carers and others) and internal (co-workers) sources in the previous 12 months. Results. Overall, greater proportions of female than male clinicians experienced aggression from external (P < 0.001) and internal (P < 0.01) sources in the previous 12 months. However, when stratified by doctor type, greater proportions of male than female general practitioners (GPs) and GP registrars experienced external aggression (P < 0.05), whereas greater proportions of female than male specialists experienced external (P < 0.01) and internal (P < 0.01) aggression. In logistic regression models, differences were identified in relation to age for males and experience working in medicine for females with external and internal aggression; working in New South Wales (vs Victoria) and internal aggression for females; a poor medical support network and external aggression, and perceived unrealistic patient expectations with internal aggression for males; warning signs in reception and waiting areas with external aggression for males; and optimised patient waiting conditions with external and internal aggression for females. Conclusions. Differences in risk and protective factors for exposure to workplace aggression between male and female clinicians, including in relation to state and rural location, need to be considered in the development and implementation of efforts to prevent and minimise workplace aggression in medical practice settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aim of the present study was to determine the association between clinician exposure to workplace aggression from any source in the previous 12 months and workforce participation intentions. Methods. A cross-sectional survey, in the third wave of the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) study, was conducted between March 2010 and June 2011. Respondents were a representative sample of 9449 Australian general practitioners (GPs) and GP registrars (n = 3515), specialists (n = 3875), hospital non-specialists (n = 1171) and specialists in training (n = 888). Associations between aggression exposure and workforce participation intentions were determined using logistic regression modelling. Results. In adjusted models, aggression exposure was positively associated with a greater likelihood of intending to reduce clinical workload in the next 5 years (odds ratio (OR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.29) and intending to leave patient care within 5 years (OR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.35). When also accounting for well being factors, aggression exposure remained positively associated with intending to leave patient care within 5 years (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.27). Conclusions. Exposure to workplace aggression presents a risk to the retention of medical practitioners in clinical practice and a potential risk to community access to quality medical care. More concerted efforts in preventing and minimising workplace aggression in clinical medical practice are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]