Search

Objectives: HealthPathways, pioneered in Canterbury, New Zealand, in 2008, is a web-based tool designed to promote health care integration and patient management in primary care and to reduce fragmentation in the delivery of health services. This cross-sectional study evaluated the utilisation and perceptions of this tool among health professionals in Australia and New Zealand. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered online through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses and managers, nurse practitioners, specialist and community nurses, hospital clinicians, nurses, managers, and allied health professionals between April and September 2018. The frequency of HealthPathways use in the previous month was modelled as an ordered response using an ordered logistic regression model after adjusting for the possible effects of sex, age, years in clinical practice, location and time spent in practice. Results: Health professionals perceived HealthPathways to be useful in primary care management and referral, as well as in the prereferral treatment of patients. GPs in New Zealand, New South Wales and Victoria were 73%, 47% and 27% more likely to have used HealthPathways ≥10 times in the previous month respectively. Conclusion: The results suggest that HealthPathways is having a positive effect on healthcare systems in New Zealand and Australia. However, differences in uptake suggests the need for focused implementation, integration into eReferral software and expanding the tool to medical students, registrars, allied health professionals and potentially patients to encourage behavioural change. What is known about the topic?: Early evaluations suggest that HealthPathways is a useful tool for health professionals, although uptake and utilisation may be limited. However, there is no comparative evidence regarding uptake and implementation of the tool. What does the paper add?: This study is among the first to provide a comparative narrative of the literature assessing the implementation and uptake of HealthPathways across Australia and New Zealand. It is also among the first to compare the perceptions of allied health professionals in the use of HealthPathways across Australia and New Zealand. What are the implications for practitioners?: The results of this study suggest the need for focused implementation, integration into eReferral software and expanding the tool to medical students, registrars, allied health professionals and potentially patients to encourage behavioural change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A range of barriers that impede collaborations between consumer researchers and other researchers have been identified, despite clear acknowledgement of the benefits of this approach in the literature. Recent research has questioned whether the costs of collaborative research outweigh the benefits. The overarching aim of the current study is to better understand non-consumer researchers' attitudes to, and issues concerning, engagement with consumer researchers. Non-consumer researchers from mental health disciplines were invited to participate in the cross-sectional Consumers as Researchers in Mental Health survey, and to respond to open-ended questions about their experiences of collaborative research with consumer researchers. The findings demonstrate a range of benefits associated with collaborations with consumer researchers – including increased relevance and credibility of research, and greater translation of research findings into changes in health policy, service, research and education. Collaborations were found to be varied and not limited by research design, decision-making styles, or research topic. Understanding these benefits within the context of identified barriers can make an important contribution to the proliferation of mental health consumer researcher roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To describe the prevalence of perceptions of patients receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity, as perceived by intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare providers, and to assess the congruence of perceptions between providers.Methods: In this cross-sectional, observational study conducted in 21 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand, patient prevalence data was linked to an ICU staff survey to describe the extent to which patient treatment intensity was matched to the perceived prognosis and patient wishes.Results: Of the 307 study patients, 62 (20.2%) were reported to be receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity by at least one ICU healthcare professional. For reported mismatch, there was consensus amongst staff members for 52/62 (84%) of patients. Patients were significantly more likely to receive mismatched treatments if they were more severely unwell (APACHE II score > 20 vs. ≤ 20), odds ratio OR 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63-3.37, p < 0.0001, if they were an emergency admission (OR 3.05, CI 1.18-7.89, p = 0.0212) or if they had an advance care directive (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.66-8.16, p = 0.0013).Conclusions: Being more severely unwell, being an emergency admission or having an advance care directive made patients more likely to be perceived as having a mismatch between the intensity of treatments provided and either the achievable goals of care, expected prognosis or patient's wishes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]