Search

Background: Although primary health care, and in particular, general practice will be at the frontline in the response to pandemic influenza, there are no frameworks to guide systematic planning for this task or to appraise available plans for their relevance to general practice. We aimed to develop a framework that will facilitate planning for general practice, and used it to appraise pandemic plans from Australia, England, USA, New Zealand and Canada. Methodology/Principal Findings: We adapted the Haddon matrix to develop the framework, populating its cells through a multi-method study that incorporated the peer-reviewed and grey literature, interviews with general practitioners, practice nurses and senior decision-makers, and desktop simulation exercises. We used the framework to analyse 89 publiclyavailable jurisdictional plans at similar managerial levels in the five countries. The framework identifies four functional domains: clinical care for influenza and other needs, public health responsibilities, the internal environment and the macroenvironment of general practice. No plan addressed all four domains. Most plans either ignored or were sketchy about noninfluenza clinical needs, and about the contribution of general practice to public health beyond surveillance. Collaborations between general practices were addressed in few plans, and inter-relationships with the broader health system, even less frequently. Conclusions: This is the first study to provide a framework to guide general practice planning for pandemic influenza. The framework helped identify critical shortcomings in available plans. Engaging general practice effectively in planning is challenging, particularly where governance structures for primary health care are weak. We identify implications for practice and for research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine current health policy in Australia and New Zealand and assess the extent to which the policies equip these countries to meet the challenges associated with increasing rates of multi-morbid chronic illnesses., Method: We examined reports from agencies holding data relating to chronic illness in both countries, looking at prevalence trends and the frequency of multiple morbidities being recorded. We undertook content analysis of health policy documents from Australian and New Zealand government agencies., Results: The majority of people with chronic illness have multiple morbidities. Multi-morbid chronic illnesses significantly effect the health of people in both Australia and New Zealand and place substantial demands on the health systems of those countries. These consequences are both predicted to increase dramatically in the near future. Despite this, neither country explicitly acknowledges multi-morbidity as a major factor in their policies addressing chronic illness., Conclusion and Implication: In addition to considering policy responses to chronic illness, policy makers should explicitly consider policies shaped to address the needs of people with multi-morbid chronic illness.