Search

Objective: This study sought to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a facilitated advance care planning (ACP) intervention implemented in outpatient clinics, as perceived by health‐care professionals (HCPs). Methods: Data from seven focus groups (n = 27) and nine semi‐structured interviews with HCPs recruited as part of a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT) were analysed using qualitative descriptive methodology. Components of the intervention included HCP education and training, tools to assist HCPs with patient selection, hardcopy information, and ACP documentation, and specialised nurse‐facilitators to support HCPs to complete ACP conversations and documentation with patients and caregivers. Results: Health‐care professionals working in tertiary outpatient clinics perceived the facilitated ACP intervention as feasible and acceptable. Health‐care professionals reported a high level of satisfaction with key elements of the intervention, including the specialised education and training, screening and assessment procedures and ongoing support from the nurse‐facilitators. Health‐care professionals reported this training and support increased their confidence and ACP knowledge, leading to more frequent ACP discussions with patients and their families. Health‐care professionals noted their ability to conduct ACP screening and assessment in clinic was impeded by large clinical caseloads and patient‐related factors (e.g., dementia diagnoses, and emotional distress). Additional barriers to ACP implementation identified by HCPs included poor collaboration, constrained time and clinical space, undefined roles and standardised recording procedures for HCPs. Conclusions: Facilitated ACP intervention in outpatient clinics is perceived by HCPs as feasible and acceptable. Addressing barriers and tailoring implementation strategies may improve the delivery of ACP as part of tertiary outpatient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is commonly diagnosed and managed in primary care but there is evidence that this has been suboptimal, with low confidence expressed in providing interventions requiring behaviour change. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of a general practitioner (GP)–physiotherapist partnership in the diagnosis and management of COPD in primary care and to explore the experiences of participants during the implementation of the model. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with physiotherapists (n = 3), GPs (n = 2), practice nurses (PNs) (n = 2) and patients (n = 12) who had participated in the InNovaTivE Gp‐physiotheRapist pArTnErship for copD (INTEGRATED) trial. We sought to explore participants' views about their experiences and perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators to the implementation of this model of care. Interviews were transcribed, coded and thematically analysed. Synthesis of the data was guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework for clinician interviews and the health belief model for patient interviews. Results: All clinicians felt that this integrated model helped to optimise care for patients with COPD by facilitating evidence‐based practice. GPs and PNs valued the physiotherapist's knowledge and skills relating to diagnosis and management, which was reported to complement their own management and improve patient outcomes. Patients reported a sense of empowerment following their appointments and acknowledged improved self‐management skills. However, physiotherapists reported many patients were already engaging in positive health behaviours. Responses were mixed on the effectiveness of the model in facilitating teamwork between clinicians with different perspectives concerning management, communication pathways and logistical issues, such as time and room availability, being cited as barriers. Conclusions: An experienced cardiorespiratory physiotherapist embedded into a small number of primary care practices to work in partnership with GPs for COPD diagnosis and management was acceptable and viewed as beneficial for patients. Barriers relating to logistics and resources remain, which must be addressed to optimise implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient input was obtained from qualitative feedback from a prior study conducted by two authors and was used to refine the model of care to determine the added value of a physiotherapist integrated into the primary care team. This feedback was also used to refine the interview guides utilised in this study determine the acceptability of this model of care. We had health service involvement from the rehabilitation service of the local health district who were directly involved in determining study aims and establishing the project around the priorities for their chronic disease integration service. For example, this project aimed to engage with a less severe patient population in primary care who would benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation. The findings from this study will be used to further tailor the model of care to the needs of the public and patients. Trial Registration: ACTRN12619001127190 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth emerged as a means of safely providing primary healthcare (PHC) consultations. In Australia, changes to telehealth funding led to the reconsideration of the role of telehealth in the ongoing provision of PHC services. Aim: To investigate GPs', registered nurses' (RNs), nurse practitioners' (NPs), and allied health (AH) clinicians perceptions of the sustainability of telehealth in PHC post-pandemic. Design & setting: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 33 purposively selected clinicians, including GPs (n = 13), RNs (n = 5), NPs (n = 9), and AH clinicians (n = 6) working in PHC settings across Australia. Participants were drawn from responders to a national survey of PHC providers (n = 217). Method: The thematic analysis approach reported by Braun and Clarke was used to analyse the interview data. Results: Data analysis revealed that the perception of providers was represented by the following two themes: lessons learnt; and the sustainability of telehealth. Lessons learnt included the need for rapid adaptation to telehealth, use of technology, and the pandemic being a catalyst for long-term change. The sustainability of telehealth in PHC comprised four subthemes around challenges: the funding model, maintaining patient and provider safety, hybrid service models, and access to support. Conclusion: Providers required resilience and flexibility to adapt to telehealth. Funding models must reward providers from an outcome focus, rather than placing limits on telehealth's use. Hybrid approaches to service delivery will best meet the needs of the community but must be accompanied by support and education for PHC professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic insomnia is a highly prevalent disorder, with ten to thirty percent of Australian adults reporting chronic difficulties falling asleep and/or staying asleep such that it causes significant daytime impairment. Current Australian general practice guidelines recommend cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBTi) as first line treatment for insomnia, however research suggests that most general practice consultations for insomnia result in a prescription for hypnotic or sedative medicines. Although the first point of contact for patients experiencing symptoms of insomnia is often general practice, little is known about the current role, experiences and capacity of Australian general practitioners to manage insomnia. This study aimed to address that gap by exploring the attitudes and opinions of general practitioners regarding insomnia management, to inform the development and implementation of new models of best practice insomnia care within general practice. Methods: A descriptive, pragmatic qualitative study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit practising Australian general practitioners, varying in age, years of experience and geographic location. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-eight general practitioners participated in the study. Three major themes were identified: 1) Responsibility for insomnia care; 2) Complexities in managing insomnia; and 3) Navigating treatment pathways. Whilst general practitioners readily accepted responsibility for the management of insomnia, provision of care was often demanding and difficult within the funding and time constraints of general practice. Patients presenting with comorbid mental health conditions and insomnia, and decision-making regarding long-term use of benzodiazepines presented challenges for general practitioners. Whilst general practitioners confidently provided sleep hygiene education to patients, their knowledge and experience of CBTi, and access and understanding of specialised referral pathways for insomnia was limited. Conclusions: General practitioners report that whilst assessing and managing insomnia can be demanding, it is an integral part of general practice. Insomnia presents complexities for general practitioners. Greater clarity about funding options, targeted education about effective insomnia treatments, and referral pathways to specialist services, such as benzodiazepine withdrawal support and psychologists, would benefit insomnia management within general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Smoking cessation medications are effective, but often underutilized because of costs and side effects. Cytisine is a plant‐based smoking cessation medication with more than 50 years of use in central and eastern Europe. While cytisine has been found to be well‐tolerated and more effective than nicotine replacement therapy, direct comparisons with varenicline have not been conducted. This study evaluates the effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of cytisine compared with varenicline. Design Two‐arm, parallel group, randomized, non‐inferiority trial, with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment. Setting: Australian population‐based study. Participants: Adult daily smokers (n = 1266) interested in quitting will be recruited through advertisements and Quitline telephone‐based cessation support services. Intervention and comparator: Eligible participants will be randomized (1 : 1 ratio) to receive either cytisine capsules (25‐day supply) or varenicline tablets (12‐week supply), prescribed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended dosing regimen. The medication will be mailed to each participant's nominated residential address. All participants will also be offered standard Quitline behavioural support (up to six 10–12‐minute sessions). Measurements Assessments will be undertaken by telephone at baseline, 4 and 7 months post‐randomization. Participants will also be contacted twice (2 and 4 weeks post‐randomization) to ascertain adverse events, treatment adherence and smoking status. The primary outcome will be self‐reported 6‐month continuous abstinence from smoking, verified by carbon monoxide at 7‐month follow‐up. We will also evaluate the relative safety and cost‐effectiveness of cytisine compared with varenicline. Secondary outcomes will include self‐reported continuous and 7‐day point prevalence abstinence and cigarette consumption at each follow‐up interview. Comments If cytisine is as effective as varenicline, its lower cost and natural plant‐based composition may make it an acceptable and affordable smoking cessation medication that could save millions of lives world‐wide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that identifying leadership for clinical governance in rural and remote primary health care services. Topics include the clinical governance being a system for improving the quality and safety of health care, the importance of clinical governance in primary care and the contribution of leadership to implementation of clinical governance have been established, and the role of leaders in implementation has multifaceted and continues to evolve and expand.

Definitions of clinical governance are varied and there is no one agreed model. This paper explored the perspectives of rural and remote primary healthcare services, located in North Queensland, Australia, on the meaning and goals of clinical governance. The study followed an embedded multiple case study design with semi-structured interviews, document analysis and non-participant observation. Participants included clinicians, non-clinical support staff, managers and executives. Similarities and differences in the understanding of clinical governance between health centre and committee case studies were evident. Almost one-third of participants were unfamiliar with the term or were unsure of its meaning; alongside limited documentation of a definition. Although most cases linked the concept of clinical governance to key terms, many lacked a comprehensive understanding. Similarities between cases included viewing clinical governance as a management and administrative function. Differences included committee members' alignment of clinical governance with corporate governance and frontline staff associating clinical governance with staff safety. Document analysis offered further insight into these perspectives. Clinical governance is well-documented as an expected organisational requirement, including in rural and remote areas where geographic, workforce and demographic factors pose additional challenges to quality and safety. However, in reality, it is not clearly, similarly or comprehensively understood by all participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Developed nations are implementing initiatives to transform the delivery of primary care. New models have been built around multidisciplinary teams, information technology and systematic approaches for chronic disease management (CDM). In Australia, the General Practice Super Clinic (GPSC) model was introduced in 2010. A case study approach was used to illustrate the development of inter-disciplinary CDM over 12 months in two new, outer urban GPSCs. A social scientist visited each practice for two 3-4-day periods. Data, including practice documents, observations and in-depth interviews (n = 31) with patients, clinicians and staff, were analysed using the concept of organisational routines. Findings revealed slow, incremental evolution of inter-disciplinary care in both sites. Clinic managers found the facilitation of inter-disciplinary routines for CDM difficult in light of competing priorities within program objectives and the demands of clinic construction. Constraints inherent within the GPSC program, a lack of meaningful support for transformation of the model of care and the lack of effective incentives for collaborative care in fee-for-service billing arrangements, meant that program objectives for integrated multidisciplinary care were largely unattainable. Findings suggest that the GPSC initiative should be considered a program for infrastructure support rather than one of primary care transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. Given increased numbers and enhanced responsibilities of Australian general practice nurses, we aimed to delineate appropriate roles for primary health care organisations (PHCOs) to support this workforce. Methods. Atwo-round online Delphi consensus process was undertaken between January and June 2012, informed by literature review and key informant interviews. Participants were purposively selected and included decision makers from government and professional organisations, educators, researchers and clinicians from five Australian states and territories Results. Of 56 invited respondents, 35 (62%) and 31 (55%) responded to the first and second invitation respectively. Participants reached consensus on five key roles for PHCO sin optimising nursing in general practice: (1) matching workforce size and skills to population needs; (2) facilitating leadership opportunities; (3) providing education and educational access; (4) facilitating integration of general practice with other primary care services to support interdisciplinary care; and (5) promoting advanced nursing roles. National concerns, such as limited opportunities for postgraduate education and career progression, were deemed best addressed by national nursing organisations, universities and peak bodies. Conclusions. Advancement of nursing in general practice requires system-level support from a range of organisations. PHCOs play a significant role in education and leadership development for nurses and linking national nursing organisations with general practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are a substantial number of instruments for primary-care clinicians to assess physical-activity (PA). However, there are few studies that have explored the views of clinicians regarding comparative acceptability and ease of use. A better understanding of how clinicians perceive instruments could help overcome barriers, and inform future interventions. This study explored the acceptability of five PA-assessment instruments amongst a sample of Australian primary-care clinicians, including family-physicians (FP) and practice-nurses (PN). Methods: A purposive sample of FPs (N = 9) and PNs (N = 10) from eight family-practices in southern Sydney consented to participate. Stage-1 involved semi-structured interviews with participants to select preferred instruments. An analysis of the two preferred instruments was conducted as Stage-2, to identify differences in instrument purpose and content. Stage-3 involved participants using the two instruments, selected from Stage-1, for 12-weeks. At the end of this period, semi-structured interviews were repeated to explore clinician experience. Results: Clinicians indicated preferences for the GP-Physical-Activity-Questionnaire and 3-Questionnaire Physical-Activity-Questionnaire. These instruments demonstrated distinct variations in content, theoretical orientation, and outcome measures. Reasons for preference included; variations in individual clinician PA levels, knowledge in PA-assessment and instrument features. Conclusion: Findings demonstrated two instruments as preferred. Reasons for preference related to internal characteristics of clinicians such as variations in the level of individual PA and external circumstances, such as instrument features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. A mixed methods study was conducted to determine the views of Aboriginal people on their experiences of a brokerage model for access to community-based health services in an urban setting. Methods. A broad range of approaches, using surveys, semi-structured interviews and community forums with Aboriginal people were used to find out people's views and experiences of using the brokerage service. Results. Of the 1304 people invited to participate, only 127 people provided feedback on the brokerage service model for Aboriginal people. Of these, 120 people identified as being Aboriginal. Participants said that the service helped them to navigate the system and access health care. Participants felt that the health professionals involved with the service were respectful of their needs. The service was not able to improve access to dental care. Conclusions. The brokerage model implemented in this area appears to have been well received and is supporting urban Aboriginal people to access some of the health care needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is thought to enhance patient autonomy and improve end-of-life care. However, there is evidence that when patients engage in ACP, the resultant plans are often not implemented. This has been attributed to either nonadherence by health professionals or inadequacies in ACP such as inaccessibility of the plans, plans providing ambiguous or conflicting instructions, and inappropriate focus on the completion of documents rather than communication. However, it is not known whether these postulated reasons are consistent with the experiences and views of health care professionals providing end-of-life care in the community. Objective: Our aim was to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on factors influencing the implementation of ACPs. Methods: We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews of a purposive sample of 17 Australian GPs. Interview transcripts were analysed using constructionist grounded theory utilizing NVivo 9 software. Results: Factors that were considered to have an important influence on the implementation of ACPs include: ACP factors such as form, legal standing, accessibility, clarity, currency, and specificity; illness factors such as quality of life, function, diagnosis, prognosis, and prognostic certainty; family factors such as family attitudes to ACP and different conceptualizations on whether care is provided to individuals or to a family unit; and organizational and care setting factors such as health care facility's attitudes and policies in relation to end-of-life care. Conclusions: Problems in implementation of ACPs are multifactorial and not necessarily due to deliberate nonadherence by health professionals. Potential solutions to improve the clinical impact of ACP are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Advance care planning (ACP) has been gaining prominence for its perceived benefits for patients in enhancing patient autonomy and ensuring high-quality end-of-life-care. Moreover, it has been postulated that ACP has positive effects on families and health professionals and their relationship with the patient. However, there is a paucity of studies examining the views of GPs on this issue. Objective. To explore GP views on the impact that ACP has on interpersonal relationships among those involved in the patient’s care. Method. Semi-structured, open-ended interviews of a purposive sample of 17 GPs. Interview transcripts were analysed using constructionist grounded theory methodology with QSR NVivo 9 software. Results. ACP was seen as having both positive and negative impacts on interpersonal relationships. It was thought to enhance family relationships, help resolve conflicts between families and health professionals and improve trust and understanding between patients and health professionals. Negatively, it could take the family’s attention away from patient care. The link between ACP and interpersonal relationships was perceived to be bidirectional—the nature of interpersonal relationship that patients have with their families and health professionals has a profound impact on what form of ACP is likely to be useful. Conclusion. Our study highlights the importance that GPs place on the link between ACP and the patient’s interpersonal context. This has implications on how ACP is conducted in primary care settings that are considerably different from other care settings in their emphasis on continuity of care and long-term nature of relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: At-risk drinking is common in Australia. Validated screening tools such as the AUDIT-C have been promoted to general practitioners (GPs), but appear rarely used and detection of at-risk drinking in primary care remains low. We sought to describe Australian GP perceptions of the detection and screening of at-risk drinking; to understand their low uptake of alcohol screening questionnaires, and in particular, their attitude to the adoption of the AUDIT-C. Methods: Semi-structured focus group interviews of four groups of GPs and GP trainees were conducted in metropolitan Sydney between August and October 2011. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed using grounded theory methodology. Results: We identified four main themes: there was consensus that detecting at-risk drinking is important but difficult to do, social and cultural attitudes to alcohol consumption affect willingness to ask questions about its use, the dynamics of patient-doctor interactions are important, and alcohol screening questionnaires lack practical utility. Analysis suggests that the conceptual barriers to detecting at-risk drinking were: community stigma and stereotypes of "problem drinking", GP perceptions of unreliable patient alcohol use histories, and the perceived threat to the patient-doctor relationship. Conclusion: This small exploratory study found that the practice of, and barriers to, detecting at-risk drinking appear to be inextricably linked to the sociocultural beliefs surrounding alcohol use. Screening questionnaires such as the AUDIT-C are not designed to address these issues. In the current context, it is unlikely that approaches that focus on the use of these tools will be effective at improving detection of at-risk drinking by GPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interest in how to implement evidence-based practices into routine health care has never been greater. Primary care faces challenges in managing the increasing burden of chronic disease in an ageing population. Reliable prescriptions for translating knowledge into practice, however, remain elusive, despite intense research and publication activity. This study seeks to explore this dilemma in general practice by challenging the current way of thinking about healthcare improvement and asking what can be learned by looking at change through a complexity lens. Methods: This paper reports the local level of an embedded case study of organisational change for better chronic illness care over more than a decade. We used interviews, document review and direct observation to explore how improved chronic illness care developed in one practice. This formed a critical case to compare, using pattern matching logic, to the common prescription for local implementation of best evidence and a rival explanation drawn from complexity sciences interpreted through modern sociology and psychology. Results : The practice changed continuously over more than a decade to deliver better chronic illness care in line with research findings and policy initiatives--re-designing care processes, developing community linkages, supporting patient self-management, using guidelines and clinical information systems, and integrating nurses into the practice team. None of these improvements was designed and implemented according to an explicit plan in response to a documented gap in chronic disease care. The process that led to high quality chronic illness care exhibited clear complexity elements of co-evolution, non-linearity, self-organisation, emergence and edge of chaos dynamics in a network of agents and relationships where a stable yet evolving way of organizing emerged from local level communicative interaction, power relating and values based choices. Conclusions: The current discourse of implementation science as planned system change did not match organisational reality in this critical case of improvement in general practice. Complexity concepts translated in human terms as complex responsive processes of relating fit the pattern of change more accurately. They do not provide just another fashionable blueprint for change but inform how researchers, policymakers and providers participate in improving healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Advance Care Planning (ACP) has an important role in enhancing patient autonomy and guiding end-of-life care. However, there is low uptake of ACP and evidence that advance care plans are often not implemented. We explored these issues in interviews with expert clinicians and representatives of key stakeholder organisations with interest in end-of-life care. Method. Qualitative descriptive study of semi-structured telephone interviews with 23 participants. Results. Participants thought that the low uptake of ACP in Australia is a result of inadequate awareness, societal reluctance to discuss end-of-life issues, and lack of health professionals' involvement in ACP. Problems in implementation of advance care plans were thought to be a result of problems in accessing ACP documents; interpreting written documents; making binding decisions for future unpredictable situations; and paternalistic attitudes of health professionals and families. Participants had different perspectives on how advance care plans should be implemented, with some believing in strict implementation, whereas others believed in a more flexible approach. Implications. Low uptake and poor implementation of advance care plans may be addressed by (1) increasing community awareness; (2) encouraging health professional involvement; and (3) system-wide implementation of multifaceted interventions.A patient-centred approach to ACP is required to resolve the differences in views on how advance care plans should be implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Advance Care Planning (ACP) has been gaining prominence as an important component of good end-of-life care. This study explored how ACP is conceptualised by stakeholder organisations and clinicians involved in aged care and end-of-life care in Australia, in particular their views on the aim, appropriate context and settings for ACP, and how ACP should be facilitated. Participants. Twenty-three participants including expert clinicians and representatives of government organisations, professional societies, consumer groups and other organisations involved in aged care and end-of-life care. Design. Qualitative descriptive analysis of semi-structured telephone interviews. Results. Most participants viewed ACP as an ongoing process aimed at enhancing an individual's autonomy and ensuring good end-of-life care. However, there were significant differences in how this process was conceptualised. Some viewed ACP as a process undertaken by patients to define and communicate their treatment preferences. Others viewed ACP as discussions undertaken by health professionals to gain a better understanding of the patient's values and goals in order to provide good care. Implications. Our findings highlight significant differences in how ACP is conceptualised in Australia. A shared conceptualisation and agreement on purpose is needed to ensure a successful implementation of ACP in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A perennial challenge of primary care quality improvement is to establish why interventions work in some circumstances, but not others. This study aimed to identify factors explaining variations in the impact on clinical practice of a facilitation led vascular health intervention in Australian family practice. Methods: Our mixed methods study was embedded within a cluster randomised controlled trial of a facilitation intervention designed to increase the uptake of evidence-based prevention of vascular disease in family practices. The study was set in four Australian states using eight of the study's 16 intervention practices. Facilitators worked with intervention practices to develop and implement improvements in preventive care informed by a vascular risk factor audit. We constructed case studies of each practice's "intervention narrative" from semi-structured interviews with clinicians, facilitators and other staff, practice observation, and document analysis of facilitator diaries. The intervention narratives were combined with pre- and post-intervention audit data to generate typologies of practice responses to the intervention. Results: We found substantial variability between practices in the changes made to vascular risk recording. Context (i.e. practice size), adaptive reserve (i.e. interpersonal relationships, manager and nurse involvement), and occasional data idiosyncrasies interacted to influence this variability. Conclusion: The findings emphasise the importance of tailoring facilitation interventions to practice size, clinician engagement and, critically, the organisation of, and relationships between, the members of the practice team. Trial registration: The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000578808 (29/5/2012). This trial registration is retrospective as our first patient returned their consent on the 21/5/2012. Patient recruitment was ongoing until 31/10/2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) can offer benefits to patients and their families, especially when delivered in outpatient settings, but uptake remains low. Common barriers for health professionals include a perceived lack of time and adequate training, experience, and confidence in conducting ACP. Patient-reported barriers include a lack of awareness of ACP or discomfort initiating or engaging in discussions about end-of-life. Methods: We aimed to explore patients' perspectives of an ACP intervention designed to address common barriers to uptake in the general practice setting. We provided training and support to doctors and general practice nurses (GPNs) to initiate and lead ACP discussions at their respective practices (2014 to 2015). Following the intervention, we conducted interviews with patients to explore their experience of engaging in ACP in the general practice setting. Thematic analysis was used to inductively code transcripts and identify key themes from semi-structured interviews with patients. Results: Six major themes relating to patient experiences of GPN-facilitated ACP were identified: working through ideas, therapeutic relationship with nurses, significance of making wishes known, protecting family from burden, autonomy in decision-making, and challenges of family communication. The patients valued the opportunity to speak about issues that are important to them with the GPN who they found to be compassionate and caring. The patients felt that ACP would lead to significant benefits not only to themselves but also for their family. Despite encouragement to involve other family members, most patients attended the ACP discussions alone or as a couple; many did not see the relevance of their family being involved in the discussions. Some patients felt uncomfortable or reluctant in communicating the results of their discussion with their family. Conclusions: With adequate training and support, GPNs are able to initiate and facilitate ACP conversations with patients. Their involvement in ACP can have significant benefits for patients. Psychosocial and relational elements of care are critical to patient satisfaction. Our findings show that some patients may feel uncomfortable or reluctant to communicate the results of their ACP discussions with their family. A future larger study is required to verify the findings of this pilot study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Australia has introduced a prescription only model for nicotine vaping products. • We interviewed health professionals about implementation of the medical model. • Health professionals were concerned about access to vaping products by children. • Identifying quality tested vaping products was difficult for health professionals. • There was no consensus about the role of vaping products for smoking cessation. Deciding how to regulate nicotine vaping products (NVPs) is a challenge for many countries. Balanced regulation should consider the potential harms to young people from uptake of NVPs alongside the possible benefits of NVPs as a smoking cessation aid. One option is to make NVPs only available via medical prescription to adults who smoke. From October 2021, Australia adopted a unique model that allows prescription access to NVPs that meet a product standard without requiring the NVPs to be approved as therapeutic goods. This research explored the impact of this regulatory model on the smoking cessation practices of health professionals, and their views on the model. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 Australian health professionals recruited from professional networks and social media. Health professionals were eligible if they provided smoking cessation advice as part of their role, and included medical practitioners (n = 9), pharmacists (n = 9), and other health professionals that provided smoking cessation counselling (n = 21). Interviews were mostly completed by phone and online teleconferencing software. Questions focused on smoking cessation practices, advice and information provided to patients about NVPs, views about the effectiveness of the model for supporting use of NVPs for smoking cessation and preventing youth uptake, and barriers and facilitators to prescribing and dispensing NVPs. Coding and analysis used a combination of inductive and deductive approaches. Findings indicated a lack of consensus amongst the participants about NVPs as a cessation or harm reduction tool. Participants broadly agreed that the model has not been effective in improving quality control of NVPs, or in reducing youth access. Many participants eligible to prescribe or dispense NVPs felt that the current regulatory model placed an undue time and responsibility burden on clinicians. Our research identified several limitations associated with the current Australian prescription-only regulatory model. These were perceived by healthcare professionals to limit the potential for the regulations to reduce youth use and to increase access to safer NVP products for people who smoke to use for smoking cessation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]