Search

Introduction: In 2020, surging cases of COVID‐19 meant that health services had to plan for crisis‐level triage. In the Australian Capital Territory, the Clinical Health Emergency Coordination Centre sought to develop a triage policy in collaboration with a range of consumer, carer and community groups. This study aims to map the collaborative development of the COVID‐19 ICU triage policy onto the principles of co‐production. Methods: Interviews were conducted with facilitators, members of advocacy or consumer groups and clinicians who were involved in the development of the triage policy. Interviews were thematically analysed using both theory‐ and data‐driven approaches to, respectively, draw on the theoretical framework of co‐production, and to explore participants' perspectives relevant to but beyond the scope of this theoretical framework. Results: The findings suggest that at each stage of the initiative, there were ways in which the principles of co‐production were met, and ways in which they were not met. One of the fundamental concerns that arose was about whether trying to solve a problem based on resources was compatible with a solution based on human rights. Conclusion: Literature about co‐production has been critiqued for being limited to aspirational concerns, or implying co‐production is easily achievable. The current study contributes to existing research through the application of the theoretical framework of co‐production and exploring ways its aims were met and not met within a system‐level collaboration developing a high‐stakes health policy. Patient or Public Contribution: This study has been conducted and written by researchers working from lived experience perspectives, and other researchers working from traditionally mainstream health disciplines, including psychology and medicine. Further, the study is about patient and public involvement in the development of a health policy. Thus it both embodies and is about non‐tokenistic collaboration between people with lived experience and other health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many patients with chronic physical illnesses have co-morbid psychological illnesses, which may respond to interprofessional collaborative care. Continuing education programs frequently focus on skills and knowledge relevant for individual illnesses, and unidisciplinary care. This study evaluates the impact of "Mind the Gap", an Australian interprofessional continuing education program about management of dual illnesses, on practitioners' knowledge, use of psychological strategies and collaborative practice.Methods: A 6-h module addressing knowledge and skills needed for patients with physical and psychological co-morbid illnesses was delivered to 837 practitioners from mixed health professional backgrounds, through locally-facilitated workshops at 45 Australian sites. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation, incorporating observation, surveys and network analysis using data collected, before, immediately after, and three months after training.Results: Six hundred forty-five participants enrolled in the evaluation (58 % GPs, 17 % nurses, 15 % mental health professionals, response rate 76 %). Participants' knowledge and confidence to manage patients with psychological and physical illnesses improved immediately. Among the subset surveyed at three months (response rate 24 %), referral networks had increased across seven disciplines, improvements in confidence and knowledge were sustained, and doctors, but no other disciplines, reported an increase in use of motivational interviewing (85.9 % to 96.8 %) and mindfulness (58.6 % to 74 %).Conclusions: Interprofessional workshops had an immediate impact on the stated knowledge and confidence of participants to manage patients with physical and psychological comorbidities, which appears to have been sustained. For some attendees, there was a sustained improvement in the size of their referral networks and their use of some psychological strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]