Search

Background: Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was launched in 2013 to provide financial support packages for people with disability to purchase supports and services to enhance independence. People with disability are required to develop a plan with the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), the government department responsible for managing the NDIS. This scoping review aims to ascertain the level of research into people's experience of the NDIS planning process in these geographic areas. Methodology: Research publication databases were searched using a specific search string to identify research about people with disability and their families/carer's experiences of the NDIS planning process in regional, rural and remote regions of Australia. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was adopted to appraise the quality of the research publications. Research publications focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were additionally appraised using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool developed by the Centre for Excellence in Aboriginal Chronic Disease Knowledge Translation and Exchange. A thematic synthesis of the publications' contents was undertaken to ascertain people with disabilities and carers experience of the NDIS planning process. Results: Ten (N = 10) research papers were found that met the inclusion criteria. Two papers were policy reviews and reported on the improvements of the NDIS planning process since its conception. The analysis found the research archive focused on five themes: (1) healthcare workforce and NDIA staff; (2) NDIS package holders and carers lack of awareness of the NDIS; (3) cultural/socio‐economic barriers; (4) travel funding; and (5) emotional burden of the NDIS planning process. Conclusion: There are limited papers available that explore people's experiences of the NDIS planning process in regional, rural and remote regions of Australia. This systematic review illuminates the difficulties, barriers and concerns of people with disability and their carers about the planning process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ultrasound is a diagnostic tool with many advantages, however, concerns over operator wellbeing have arisen in the last 20 years. Many sonographers experience burnout, which has the potential to cause financial loss for radiology clinics, and for sonographers, suboptimal examinations, high turnover and a reduced ability to communicate with patients. The aim of this narrative review was to explore, identify and categorise the causes of burnout in the sonography profession, and to identify burnout prevention and control strategies. A literature search was conducted through Central Queensland University library, accessing the following electronic databases; Wiley Online Library, Gale Academic, Ovid, Sagepub, CINAHL, Elsevier Science Direct, PubMed and ProQuest. Eight articles were reviewed. This study identified two key themes contributing to sonographer burnout: delivering adverse news and increased workload. Twelve causes of burnout were identified, with exposure to adverse news and time constraints the most commonly identified causes. In addition, other causes identified included managerial pressures to perform more scans/tasks within a short‐time frame, followed by the constant exposure to adverse news and the burden of delivering it to patients. Recommendations include considering reducing the required number of scans per week by increasing appointment times, counselling and skills training for adverse news delivery and use of technical assistants to perform soft tasks. Current literature relating to sonographer burnout appears isolated to the obstetrics domain with further study required on sonographer burnout in other fields of sonography, including burnout because of lack of career progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor health outcomes amongst marginalized groups result in part from health inequities related to social and structural determinants of health. Marginalized people report higher incidences of comorbidities, chronic disease and adverse health behaviours than their nondisadvantaged peers. The objective of this review is to examine marginalized Australians' experiences of and access to community‐based primary health services in urban locations. Methods: A systematic search incorporating related MeSH terms and synonyms pertaining to marginalized Australian populations and their health‐seeking was conducted across seven databases. We included qualitative studies that reported experiences of health‐seeking within community‐based primary health care in metropolitan Australia. Participant populations experiencing marginalization due to social stigma and isolation, early‐life disadvantage, poor health and/or financial hardship were included. A meta‐ethnographic framework was used to synthesize themes across selected studies and researcher triangulation was employed to develop higher‐order themes. Results: Search results revealed 26 studies included for critical appraisal and synthesis. Seven higher‐order themes were developed describing experiences of health service engagement amongst marginalized groups: (1) Understanding the patient within the context of family and community, (2) Health and cultural beliefs influence health‐seeking, (3) Lack of information and poor cultural competence limit utilization of services, (4) Motivation for treatment influences health service engagement, (5) Accessing services, a spectrum of experience—from discrimination to validation, (6) Navigating a complex system in a complex society, (7) Preferences for health care and expectations for systemic change. Conclusion: Marginalized Australians experience health disadvantage across micro, meso and macro levels of health system navigation and commonalities in health‐seeking were identified across each of the distinct marginalized groups in our analysis. This review outlines important areas of consideration for health care provision and policy development essential to helping address health inequities for a diversity of marginalized populations. Patient or Public Contribution: Whilst patient voices were reported across all studies included within this review, no further patient or public contribution applies to this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]