Search

Objective: This study gathered information from public hospital chief medical officers to better understand underlying mechanisms through which public reporting affects institutional behavioural change and decision making towards quality improvement. Methods: This qualitative study used thematic analysis of 17 semistructured, in-depth interviews among a peak group of medical directors representing 26 health services in Victoria, Australia. Results: The medical directors indicated a high level of in-principle support for public reporting of identifiable, individual clinician-level data. However, they also described varying conceptual understanding of what public reporting of performance data is. Overall, they considered public reporting of individual clinicians' performance data a means to improve health care quality, increase transparency and inform consumer healthcare decision making. Most identified caveats that would need to be met before such data should be publicly released, in particular the need to resolve issues around data quality and timeliness, context and interpretation and ethics. Acknowledgement of the public's right to access individual clinician-level data was at odds with some medical directors' belief that such reporting may diminish trust between clinicians and their employers, thus eroding rather than motivating quality improvement. Conclusions: Public reporting of identifiable individual healthcare clinicians' performance data is an issue that merits robust research and debate given the effects such reporting may have on doctors and on hospital quality and safety. What is known about the topic?: The public reporting of individual clinician-level data is a mechanism used in some countries, but not in Australia, for increasing health care transparency and quality. Clinician-level public reporting of doctors' performance attracts contention and debate in Australia. What does this paper add?: This paper informs debate around the public reporting of individual clinician-level performance data. Among a discrete cohort of senior hospital administrators in Victoria, Australia, there was strong in-principle support for such public reporting as a means to improve hospital quality and safety. What are the implications for practitioners?: Before public reporting of individual clinician performance data could occur in Australia, resolution of issues would be required relating to legality and ethics, data context and interpretation, data quality and timeliness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to understand primary health care (PHC) access barriers for vulnerable people living in south-east Melbourne from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs) who work in the area and to outline strategies that GPs have used to address these barriers. Methods: A convergent mixed-methods design was used. Quantitative surveys were conducted with practice managers and GPs, and semistructured qualitative interviews were undertaken with GPs. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Results: Each of the vulnerable groups frequently seen by GPs in south-east Melbourne is thought to encounter access barriers in one or more access domains. GPs reported: (1) improving transparency, outreach and information on available treatments to address limited health literacy; (2) using culturally sensitive and language-speaking staff to overcome cultural stereotypes; (3) making practice-level arrangements to overcome limited mobility and social isolation; (4) bulk billing and helping find affordable services to overcome financial hardship; and (5) building trusting relationships with vulnerable patients to improve their engagement with treatment. Conclusion: GPs understand the nature of access barriers for local vulnerable groups and have the potential to improve equitable access to primary health care. GPs need support in the on-going application and further development of strategies to accommodate access needs of vulnerable patients. What is known about the topic?: Access to primary health care (PHC) is integral to reducing gaps in health outcomes for vulnerable groups. Vulnerable groups often encounter challenges in accessing PHC, and GPs have the potential to improve PHC access. What does this paper add?: GPs thought that the vulnerable patients they frequently treat encounter barriers pertaining to both patient access abilities and service accessibility. They reported addressing these barriers by improving transparency, outreach and information on available treatments; using culturally sensitive and multilingual staff; making practice-level arrangements to overcome limited mobility and social isolation; bulk billing and helping find affordable services; and building trusting relationships with vulnerable patients. What are the implications for practitioners?: Understanding the nature of access barriers for local vulnerable groups and information on strategies used by GPs allows for the further development of PHC access strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability of a novel, integrated general practitioner (GP)–paediatrician model of care, aiming to reduce referrals to hospitals and improve primary care quality. Methods: A pre-post study was conducted with five general practice clinics in north-west Melbourne. Over 12 months, 49 GPs and 896 families participated in the intervention that included weekly to fortnightly paediatrician–GP co-consultation sessions at the general practice, monthly case discussions and telephone or email clinical support for GPs. GPs and families completed surveys or interviews at three time points (before the intervention, after running the model for 4 months and at the end of the implementation). Non-identifiable consultation data were extracted from general practice medical records. Results: All GPs found the model acceptable. Although not significant, there was a trend towards a lower proportion of referrals to private paediatricians after the intervention (from 34% to 20%) and emergency departments (from 19% to 12%). Outpatient clinic referrals remained steady, and then increased as the paediatrician left the clinics (31% vs 47% before and after the intervention respectively). Unnecessary prescribing of acid suppression medications decreased by 20% (from 29% to 9%). GPs reported improved confidence in paediatric care (88% vs 100% before and after the intervention respectively). Families reported increased confidence in GP care (78% vs 94% before and after the intervention respectively). Model cost estimates were A$172 above usual care per child seen in the co-consultations. Conclusions: This novel model of care is acceptable to GPs and families and may improve access and quality of paediatric care. What is known about the topic?: A GP–paediatrician integrated model of care appears effective in reducing hospital burden in England, but has not been implemented in Australia. What does this paper add?: This pilot, an Australian first, found that a GP–paediatrician integrated model of care is feasible and acceptable in Australia's primary healthcare system, improves GP confidence and quality of paediatric care, may reduce paediatric referrals to outpatient clinics and emergency departments and improves family confidence in, and preference for, GP care. What are the implications for practitioners?: This model may reduce hospital burden and improve quality in GP paediatric care while potentially producing cost savings for families and the healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aims of the present study were to describe the views of senior clinical and executive staff employed in public sector residential aged care services (RACS) about the benefits and limitations of using quality indicators (QIs) for improving care, and to identify any barriers or enablers to implementing the QI program. Methods. Across-sectional qualitative study using semistructured interviews and direct observation of key informants involved in the QI program was performed across 20 public sector RACS in Victoria, Australia. Participants included senior clinical, executive and front-line staff at the RACS. The main outcome measures were perceived benefits and the enablers or barriers to the implementation of a QI program. Results. Most senior clinical and executive staff respondents reported substantive benefits to using the QIs and the QI program. A limited number of staff believed that the QI program failed to improve the quality of care and that the resource requirements outweighed the benefits of the program, resulting in disaffected staff. Conclusions. The QIs and QI program acted as a foundation for improving standards of care when used at the front line or point of care. Senior executive engagement in the QI program was vital to successful implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]