Search

Background: Access to primary care is important for the identification, control and management of cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRFs). This study investigated whether differences in geographic access to primary care explained area-level variation in CMRFs., Methods: Multilevel logistic regression models were used to derive the association between area-level access to primary care and seven discrete CMRFs after adjusting for individual and area-level co-variates. Two-step floating catchment area method was used to calculate the geographic access to primary care for the small areas within the study region., Results: Geographic access to primary care was inversely associated with low high density lipoprotein (OR 0.94, CI 0.91-0.96) and obesity (OR 0.91, CI 0.88-0.93), after adjusting for age, sex and area-level disadvantage. The intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICCs) of all the fully adjusted models ranged between 0.4-1.8%, indicating low general contextual effects of the areas on CMRF distribution. The area-level variation in CMRFs explained by primary care access was ≤10.5%., Conclusion: The findings of the study support proportionate universal interventions for the prevention and control of CMRFs, rather than any area specific interventions based on their primary care access, as the contextual influence of areas on all the analysed CMRFs were found to be minimal. The findings also call for future research that includes other aspects of primary care access, such as road-network access, financial affordability and individual-level acceptance of the services in order to gain an overall picture of the area-level contributing role of primary care on CMRFs in the study region., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: There is international interest in whether improved primary care, in particular for patients with chronic or complex conditions, can lead to decreased use of health resources and whether financial incentives help achieve this goal. This trial (EQuIP-GP) will investigate whether a funding model based upon targeted, continuous quality incentive payments for Australian general practices increases relational continuity of care, and lessens health-service utilisation, for high-risk patients and children., Methods: We will use a mixed methods approach incorporating a two-arm pragmatic cluster randomised control trial with nested qualitative case studies. We aim to recruit 36 general practices from Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRN) covering urban and regional areas of Australia, randomised into intervention and control groups. Control practices will provide usual care while intervention practices will be supported to implement a new service model incorporating incentives for relational continuity and timely access to appointments. Patients will comprise three groups: older (over 65 years); 18-65 years with chronic and/or complex conditions; and those aged less than 16 years with increased risk of hospitalisation. The funding model includes financial incentives to general practitioners (GPs) for providing longer consultations, same day access and timely follow-up after hospitalisation to enrolled patients. The payments are proportional to expected health system savings associated with improved quality of GP care. An outreach facilitator will work with practices to help incorporate the incentive model into usual work. The main outcome measure is relational continuity of care (Primary Care Assessment Tool short-form survey), with secondary outcomes including health-related quality of life and health service use (hospitalisations, emergency presentations, GP and specialist services in the community, medicine prescriptions and targeted pathology and imaging ordering). Outcomes will be initially evaluated over a period of 12 months, with ongoing data collection for 5 years., Discussion: The trial will provide robust evidence on a novel approach to providing continuous incentives for improving quality of general practice care, which can be compared to block payment incentives awarded at target quality levels of pay-for-performance, both within Australia and also internationally., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000105246. Registered on 23 January 2018.

Background: Despite clinical guidelines that recommend routine nutrition screening of older patients, this does not generally occur in the Australian general practice setting. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers and opportunities to implementing nutrition screening of older people in general practice., Methods: Twenty-five in-depth individual interviews were conducted with general practitioners, general practice registrars and practice nurses. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Observations were performed to identify opportunities to conduct nutrition screening within general practice workflow., Results: The primary identified barrier to screening related to time constraints, which was further validated by the observational component of the study. The main opportunity for screening was seen to be within the existing Australian Government Medicare Benefits Schedule Primary Care Item, 'Health assessment for people aged 75 years and older'., Discussion: Incorporation of a validated and short nutrition screening instrument into the existing Health assessment was identified as the most feasible way to encourage the uptake of nutrition screening in general practice.

Background: An increased incidence of chronic and complex conditions in the community is placing pressure on human resources in general practice. Improving collaboration between GPs and registered nurses may help alleviate workforce stressors and enhance health outcomes.Objective: To explore the facilitators and challenges of collaboration between GPs and registered nurses in Australian general practice.Methods: Eight GPs and 14 registered nurses from general practices in New South Wales, Australia, participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and underwent thematic analysis.Results: The overarching theme 'Understanding collaboration in general practice' comprises four sub-themes, namely (i) interpreting collaboration in general practice, (ii) modes of communication, (iii) facilitators of collaboration and (iv) collaboration in practice.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that regular, formal avenues of communication, professional development and non-hierarchical environments facilitated collaboration between nurses and GPs. Implementing strategies to promote these features has the potential to improve inter-professional collaboration and quality of care within primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Good General Practice is essential for an effective health system. Good General Practice training is essential to sustain the workforce, however training for General Practice can be hampered by a number of pressures, including professional, structural and social isolation. General Practice trainees may be under more pressure than fully registered General Practitioners, and yet isolation can lead doctors to reduce hours and move away from rural practice. Virtual communities of practice (VCoPs) in business have been shown to be effective in improving knowledge sharing, thus reducing professional and structural isolation. This literature review will critically examine the current evidence relevant to virtual communities of practice in General Practice training, identify evidence-based principles that might guide their construction and suggest further avenues for research. Methods: Major online databases Scopus, Psychlit and Pubmed were searched for the terms "Community of Practice" (CoP) AND (Online OR Virtual OR Electronic) AND (health OR healthcare OR medicine OR "Allied Health"). Only peer-reviewed journal articles in English were selected. A total of 76 articles were identified, with 23 meeting the inclusion criteria. There were no studies on CoP or VCoP in General Practice training. The review was structured using a framework of six themes for establishing communities of practice, derived from a key study from the business literature. This framework has been used to analyse the literature to determine whether similar themes are present in the health literature and to identify evidence in support of virtual communities of practice for General Practice training. Results: The framework developed by Probst is mirrored in the health literature, albeit with some variations. In particular the roles of facilitator or moderator and leader whilst overlapping, are different. VCoPs are usually collaborations between stakeholders rather than single company VCoPs. Specific goals are important, but in specialised health fields sometimes less important than in business. Boundary spanning can involve the interactions of different professional groups, as well as using external experts seen in business VCoPs. There was less use of measurement in health VCoPs. Environments must be supportive as well as risk free. Additional findings were that ease of use of technology is paramount and it is desirable for VCoPs to blend online and face-to-face involvement. Conclusions: The business themes of leadership, sponsorship, objectives and goals, boundary spanning, risk-free environment and measurements become, in the health literature, facilitation, champion and support, objectives and goals, a broad church, supportive environment, measurement benchmarking and feedback, and technology and community. General Practice training is under pressure from isolation and virtual communities of practice may be a way of overcoming isolation. The health literature supports, with some variation, the business CoP framework developed by Probst. Further research is needed to clarify whether this framework is an effective method of health VCoP development and if these VCoPs overcome isolation and thus improve rural retention of General Practice registrars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]