Search

To examine general practitioners’ views about how health assessments for older people should be conducted.

Objective: To examine general practitioners’ views about how health assessments for older people should be conducted. Methods: General practitioners were randomly sampled from a national database of medical practitioners and invited to complete a survey. Survey items explored general practitioners’ views about essential components of a 75+ Health Assessment and who should assess each component, consultation time, use of standardised templates and tools, and home visits. Results: Overall, 185 (19.2%) general practitioners participated. Of 61 items presented, 24 were rated ‘essential’ by ≥70% of practitioners, with an average estimated consultation time of 65 minutes. Of the 24 essential items, it was perceived that 21 could be assessed by either a general practitioner or clinic nurse. Most practitioners indicated a standardised template (86%) and standardised tools for complex issues (79%) should be used, and home visits conducted (75%). Conclusions: General practitioners agreed on 24 items as essential for every health assessment, with assessments estimated to take more than one hour. Implications for public health: Increases to remuneration for prolonged assessments or mechanisms for improving efficiency and quality of assessments are needed. Acceptable mechanisms may include standardised patient‐reported tools, standardised templates and the use of non‐medical staff to assist with assessments.

There have been few international comparisons of patient-centered cancer care delivery. This study aimed to compare the experiences of patient-centered care (PCC) of Japanese and Australian radiation oncology patients. Participants were adults with cancer attending a radiotherapy appointment at a Japanese or Australian clinic. Participants completed a survey asking about 10 indicators of PCC. Overall, 259 Japanese and 285 Australian patients participated. Compared with Japanese participants, Australian participants were significantly more likely to report receiving information about: what the treatment is, and the short-term and long-term side effects of treatment. A higher proportion of Australian participants reported being asked whether they wanted a friend or family member present at the consultation. There were no differences in the frequency with which Japanese and Australian participants were asked by their clinicians about whether they were experiencing physical side effects or emotional distress. International differences highlight the (1) need to exercise caution when generalizing from one country to another; and (2) the importance of context in understanding PCC delivery and the subsequent design of quality improvement interventions.