Search

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction: Doctors working in rehabilitation settings have specialized clinical skills and experience, but research activity may be constrained by time pressures and inadequate current skills. This means missed opportunities to contribute to the evidence-base for better clinical practice and outcomes for people living with disabling, chronic complex conditions. This research aimed to understand rehabilitation doctors' research needs, experience, and aspirations to enable future training initiatives that are tailored to their practice context. Methods: This exploratory sequential mixed-method study comprised a survey followed by focus groups. Rehabilitation doctors from three health services in south-east Queensland, Australia completed an online survey incorporating the Research Spider to explore their research experience, confidence, interest, opportunity, and intent. Focus groups explored the survey results and participants' views regarding strategies to build research capacity. Results: The major findings were the gap between high research interest and low experience, confidence and opportunity; and fundamental research skills were identified as priority training topics. These findings support previous research. However, rehabilitation doctors may also have a self-expectation that, as competent clinicians, they should necessarily also be research-competent, and hold misperceptions regarding the shared nature of health services research. Discussion: Protected time and funding may enhance engagement with research to generate specialty-relevant evidence for practice. To this end, a research capacity building initiative in the form of a series of self-directed learning packages has been developed and implemented. A tailored workshop to strengthen rehabilitation doctors' research skills and engagement has also been developed for implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to quantify the perceived needs and adequacy of realised access to post-acute services in a sample of people with acquired brain injury in the first 6-months after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. A secondary focus was the influence of access to funding and specialist transitional rehabilitation on unmet needs. Participants were 51 adults with a median age of 50 (IQR 35–57) recruited from an inpatient rehabilitation unit in an Australian tertiary hospital. The sample was those who had an acquired brain injury, including 23 who sustained a traumatic injury and 28 who sustained a non-traumatic injury. Measures were collected via telephone at 3- and 6-months, in a prospective observational cohort design using the Needs and Provisions Complexity Scale. A series of logistic regression models were used to determine the effects of participation in a transitional rehabilitation program and funding pathway on adequacy and unmet needs. Unmet needs for rehabilitation were most commonly reported (60%), followed by unmet needs in relation to health care (40%), social care (35%), personal care (32%) and environment-related (14%). Participants who attended transitional rehabilitation were more likely to indicate unmet health care needs (OR = 6.40, 95% CI = 1.40–29.24, p = 0.02). The study highlights the need to look beyond functional impairment when conceptualising appropriate access. Additionally, the present research highlighted the need for greater work into an expectation of services. The majority of people with an acquired brain injury report unmet needs at 6 months post discharge. Present findings support the utility of patient reported measures when considering treatment evaluation with people with ABI, where assessing the personal appraisal of individuals needs may prove to be a key indicator to facilitate optimal service access. There are specific services that needed and not provided including psychological, speech pathology, family carer needs and vocational rehabilitation, and therefore are a key target for ensuring appropriate support is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Planning for discharge and supports beyond hospital for people with disability in Australia involves negotiation of complex care systems. The aims of this study were to examine how the individualised support pathway of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) functioned for admitted people with disability who required funded support to leave hospital; and to explore the factors indicative of increased care complexity associated with delays. Retrospective chart reviews of people with disability were conducted. Data on 198 eligible patients were extracted, including NDIS plan approval and plan implementation timeframes and discharge delay. Participants' median age was 52 years (interquartile range = 41–59). The most common disability type was spinal cord injury (41%). The median NDIS plan approval and implementation timeframes were 89 days (63–123) and 39 days (8–131), respectively, and most participants (72%) experienced a delayed discharge. A longer plan implementation timeframe was associated with higher odds of a delay in discharge (OR = 3.41, 95% credible interval = 1.56, 7.11). We did not find any evidence that plan approval timeframe, or any other variable indicative of increased care complexity, was associated with discharge delays. Our findings suggest that a delayed discharge will likely be the reality for people with disability who require funded supports to leave hospital. They also suggest that NDIS plan implementation is a major challenge and a focus for policy and practice improvements. To target solutions, further research should focus on the interactions and negotiations of the multiple intermediaries involved and resource and structural impediments to plan implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to escalate, health system reform is seeking better patient outcomes through new models of care that aim to provide the most appropriate care when needed. Patients' experiences of service innovations can shed light on the successes and challenges of implementing change. This paper explores patients' views of a new model of integrated care for patients with type 2 diabetes. A mixed-methods, randomised control trial evaluated a beacon clinic model of care for complex type 2 diabetes led by specialist general practitioners ( GPs) in primary care settings in Brisbane, Australia. In this qualitative sub-study conducted between May 2014 and January 2015, 25 consenting participants were re-interviewed after 12 months using semi-structured questions, to explore their experiences of the new model of care. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically. In the first theme, Organised for patient-centred care, patients appraised the structural elements of the clinic. For most, it was an enabling experience which included convenience, flexibility and prompt communication back to the referring GPs. The preferences of a minority were partly realised, as they tried to understand the clinical purpose in comparison with traditional care. The second theme, Positioned as partners in care, revealed the pivotal role of patient-clinician relationships in patients' engagement with advice and self-care. Most found clinicians' collaborative approach engaging and motivating. A small minority with contextual concerns were disappointed with the focus on diabetes and struggled to engage fully with the model. Most participants valued this model of care, which reflects a capacity to manage the variable and complex needs of most patients referred for care. However, multi-level strategies are also needed to enhance patients' engagement with care and the sustainability of integrated diabetes care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health system reform is directed towards better management of diabetes. However, change can be difficult, and patients’ perspectives are a key aspect of implementing change. Objective: This study investigated patients’ perceptions and experiences of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), self‐care and engagement with GP‐led integrated diabetes care. Design: Qualitative interviews were conducted with purposively selected patients with T2DM following their initial medical appointment in the new model of care. Normalization process theory was used to orientate the thematic analysis, to explain the work of implementing change. Setting: Two specialist GP‐based complex diabetes services in primary care in Brisbane, Australia. Participants: Intervention group patients (n = 30) in a randomized controlled trial to evaluate a model of GP‐led integrated care for complex T2DM. Main outcome measures: Participants’ experiences and perceptions of diabetes management and a GP‐led model of care. Results: Three themes were identified: sensibility of change, ‘diabetic life’ and diabetes care alliance. The imperative of change made sense, but some participants experienced dissonance between this rational view and their lived reality. Diabetes invaded life, revealing incongruities between participants’ values and living with diabetes. They appreciated a flexible and personalized approach to care. Discussion: Participants responded to advice in ways that seemed rational within the complexities of their life context. Their diabetes partnerships with health professionals coupled providers’ biomedical expertise with patients’ contextual expertise. Conclusions: Learning to manage relationships with various health professionals adds to patients’ diabetes‐related work. Providers need to adopt a flexible, interactive approach and foster trust, to enable better diabetes care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which investigated the views of primary care patients of Medicare-funded team care in chronic disease management (CDM) in Australia. The researchers detail the study design, participants and setting, data collection procedure and outcomes. It implies that patients are likely to engage with a structured team care approach to CDM driven by personal obligation and sufficient financial incentive.