Search

Introduction: Telepractice service delivery of allied health interventions to people with disability can potentially reduce access barriers and improve service equity. However, questions remain regarding telepractice functionality for people with disability. This study addressed questions related to how allied health clinicians and managers perceive telepractice as functioning in the provision of therapy services to people with disability. Methods: Thirteen interviews of allied health clinicians and managers from across Australia were conducted between 21 November and 22 February via MS teams. Qualitative methodology and critical realist theoretical paradigm underpin the study. Data analysis was completed using a reflective thematic analysis method and five themes were generated and described utilising an analytic metaphor. Results: The study themes were described in relation to a shopping for shoes analytic metaphor and the five themes included (1) a shoe for every foot, (2) planned purchases, (3) shoe on the other foot, (4) you need both shoes and (5) help choosing their shoes. In summary, the function of telepractice fits differently for each individual, similar to pairs of shoes. Conclusions: Telepractice has its own strengths and weaknesses and isn't a direct substitute for in‐person sessions, much like left and right shoes are similar but not the same. The results support participant perceptions that telepractice functions best as an adjunct to in‐person sessions through a flexible hybrid delivery model in the provision of therapy services to people with a disability. A strategy for improving perceived usefulness may involve positioning telepractice as unique with strengths and weaknesses, not replacing in‐person care. Patient or Public Contribution: The paper forms part of a larger codesign process which included customer and carer participants throughout the design and planning of the project, inclusion of a peer researcher, and the selection of the analytic metaphor including in the findings of this article production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Facilitators to implement shared cancer follow‐up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two‐way information sharing and clear follow‐up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted pre‐ and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed. Results: Thirty‐two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow‐up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer‐specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low‐risk, stable patients around 2–3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow‐up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported. Conclusion: Patients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow‐up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT The moral importance of the 'intention-foresight' distinction has long been a matter of philosophical controversy, particularly in the context of end-of-life care. Previous empirical research in Australia has suggested that general physicians and surgeons may use analgesic or sedative infusions with ambiguous intentions, their actions sometimes approximating 'slow euthanasia'. In this paper, we report findings from a qualitative study of 18 Australian palliative care medical specialists, using in-depth interviews to address the use of sedation at the end of life. The majority of subjects were agnostic or atheistic. In contrast to their colleagues in acute medical practice, these Australian palliative care specialists were almost unanimously committed to distinguishing their actions from euthanasia. This commitment appeared to arise principally from the need to maintain a clear professional role, and not obviously from an ideological opposition to euthanasia. While some respondents acknowledged that there are difficult cases that require considered reflection upon one's intention, and where there may be some 'mental gymnastics,' the nearly unanimous view was that it is important, even in these difficult cases, to cultivate an intention that focuses exclusively on the relief of symptoms. We present four narratives of 'terminal' sedation - cases where sedation was administered in significant doses just before death, and may well have hastened death. Considerable ambiguities of intention were evident in some instances, but the discussion around these clearly exceptional cases illustrates the importance of intention to palliative care specialists in maintaining their professional roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]