Search

Objective: Living in regional/rural areas can impact outcomes for people with head and neck cancer (HNC). Using a comprehensive state‐wide dataset, the impact of remoteness on key service parameters and outcomes for people with HNC was examined. Methods: Retrospective quantitative analysis of routinely collected data held within the Queensland Oncology Repository. Design: Quantitative methods (descriptive statistics, multivariable logistic regression and geospatial analysis). Setting: All people diagnosed with HNC in Queensland, Australia. Participants: The impact of remoteness was examined in 1991 people (1171 metropolitan, 485 inner‐regional, 335 rural) with HNC cancer diagnosed between 2013 and 2015. Main Outcome Measures: This paper reports key demographics and tumour characteristics (age, gender, socioeconomic status, First Nations status, co‐morbidities, primary tumour site and staging), service use/uptake (treatment rates, attendance at multidisciplinary team review and timing to treatment) and post‐acute outcomes (readmission rates, causes of readmission and 2‐year survival). In addition to this, the distribution of people with HNC across QLD, distances travelled and patterns of readmission were also analysed. Results: Regression analysis revealed remoteness significantly (p < 0.001) impacted access to MDT review, receiving treatment, and time to treatment commencement, but not readmission or 2‐year survival. Reasons for readmission did not differ by remoteness, with dysphagia, nutritional inadequacies, gastrointestinal disorders and fluid imbalance indicated in the majority of readmissions. Rural people were significantly (p < 0.0001) more likely to travel to care and to readmit to a different facility than provided primary treatment. Conclusions: This study provides new insights into the health care disparities for people with HNC residing in regional/rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This study aims to ascertain if differences exist in the perception of the professional practice environment and personal well-being of nurses across different geographical areas in Queensland. Design This paper was performed on a prospective, self-report cross-sectional on-line survey. Setting The study was conducted among the nurses employed in public and private health care settings: acute hospitals, community health and aged care in Queensland, Australia. Participants Participants of this study were 1608 registered and enrolled nurses and assistants in nursing, current members of the Queensland Nurses Union in 2013 and who provided a workplace postcode. One thousand eight of these participants worked in major cities, while 382 in rural locations and 238 in remote areas. Interventions None. Main outcome measures Scores of well-being as determined by the following scales: the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale, the Professional Quality of Life Scale version 5, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and of the Professional Practice Environment using the Practice Environment Scale - Nursing Work Index Revised. Results Nurses employed in major cities perceived 'nursing foundations for quality care' more favourably than those from other settings. Remote area nurses had lower levels of secondary traumatic stress than nurses in major cities and rural areas. There was no difference between nurses across their geographical locations for stress, anxiety, depression, compassion satisfaction, burnout, resilience and the four other measures of the Practice Environment Scale. Conclusions The study findings provide new data suggesting that, with the exception of secondary traumatic stress, the personal well-being of nurses does not differ across geographical settings. Similarly, with the exception of the subscale of 'nursing foundations for quality care' there was no difference in perceptions of the professional practice environment. As secondary traumatic stress is associated with burnout, this finding needs to be investigated further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]