Search

Background: Increasing numbers of primary care practitioners in refugee resettlement countries are providing care to refugees. Access to trained interpreters is a priority for these practitioners, but there are many barriers to the implementation of interpreted consultations in routine care. There is a lack of international, theoretically informed research. The purpose of this paper is to understand barriers to interpreter use in primary care consultations in four resettlement countries using Normalisation Process Theory. Method: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey with networks of primary care practitioners (PCPs) who care for refugees in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the US (n = 314). We analysed qualitative data from the survey about barriers to interpreter use (n = 178). We completed an inductive thematic analysis, iteratively developed a Normalisation Process Theory (NPT)-informed coding frame and then mapped the emergent findings onto the theory's construct about enacting interpreted consultations. Results: In all four countries, the use of an interpreter presented communication and interaction challenges between providers and patients, which can impede the goals of primary care consultations. Primary care practitioners did not always have confidence in interpreted consultations and described poor professional practice by some interpreters. There was variation across countries, and inconsistency within countries, in the availability of trained interpreters and funding sources. Conclusion: There are shared and differential barriers to implementation of interpreted consultations in a consistent and sustained way in the four countries studied. These findings can be used to inform country-specific and international level policies and interventions focusing on improving skills and resources for interpreted consultations to improve implementation of interpreted primary care consultations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People living in rural and remote communities commonly experience significant health disadvantages. Geographical barriers and reduced specialist and generalist services impact access to care when compared with metropolitan context. Innovative models of care have been developed for people living with chronic diseases in rural areas with the goal of overcoming these inequities. The aim of this paper was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of studies investigating innovative models of care for people living with chronic disease in rural areas of developed countries where a metropolitan comparator was included.Methods: An integrative systematic review was undertaken. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to understand the empirical and theoretical data on clinical outcomes for people living with chronic disease in rural compared with metropolitan contexts and their models of care in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.Results: Literature searching revealed 620 articles published in English between 1st January 2000 and 31st March 2019. One hundred sixty were included in the review including 68 from the United States, 59 from Australia and New Zealand (5), 21 from Canada and 11 from the United Kingdom and Ireland. 53% (84) focused on cardiovascular disease; 27% (43) diabetes mellitus; 8% (12) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and 13% (27) chronic kidney disease. Mortality was only reported in 10% (16) of studies and only 18% (29) reported data on Indigenous populations.Conclusions: This integrated review reveals that the published literature on common chronic health issues pertaining to rural and remote populations is largely descriptive. Only a small number of publications focus on mortality and comparative health outcomes from health care models in both urban and non-urban populations. Innovative service models and telehealth are together well represented in the published literature but data on health outcomes is relatively sparse. There is significant scope for further directly comparative studies detailing the effect of service delivery models on the health outcomes of urban and rural populations. We believe that such data would further knowledge in this field and help to break the deadly synergy between increased rurality and poorer outcomes for people with chronic disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The recession of 2008 triggered large-scale emigration from Ireland. Australia emerged as a popular destination for Irish emigrants and for Irish-trained doctors. This paper illustrates the impact that such an external shock can have on the medical workforce and demonstrates how cross-national data sharing can assist the source country to better understand doctor emigration trends.Method: This study draws on Australian immigration, registration and census data to highlight doctor migration flows from Ireland to Australia, 2008-2018.Findings: General population migration from Ireland to Australia increased following the 2008 recession, peaked between 2011 and 2013 before returning to pre-2008 levels by 2014, in line with the general economic recovery in Ireland. Doctor emigration from Ireland to Australia did not follow the same pattern, but rather increased in 2008 and increased year on year since 2014. In 2018, 326 Irish doctors obtained working visas for Australia. That doctor migration is out of sync with general economic conditions in Ireland and with wider migration patterns indicates that it is influenced by factors other than evolving economic conditions in Ireland, perhaps factors relating to the health system.Discussion: Doctor emigration from Ireland to Australia has not decreased in line with improved economic conditions in Ireland, indicating that other factors are driving and sustaining doctor emigration. This paper considers some of these factors. Largescale doctor emigration has significant implications for the Irish health system; representing a brain drain of talent, generating a need for replacement migration and a high dependence on internationally trained doctors. This paper illustrates how source countries, such as Ireland, can use destination country data to inform an evidence-based policy response to doctor emigration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]