Search

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]

Objectives: This study explored publicly funded health system and patient expenditure in the post-acute phase following discharge from inpatient acquired brain injury (ABI) or spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation. The secondary aim was to explore sociodemographic and injury characteristics associated with high costs. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study. 153 patients (ABI: n = 85; SCI: n = 68) who consented to the use of their Medicare data were recruited between March 2017 and March 2018, at the point of discharge from ABI or SCI specialist rehabilitation units. The main outcome measure involved linkage of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data for the 12 months following discharge from rehabilitation. Bayesian penalised regression was used to determine characteristics associated with high costs. Results: The median number of MBS items used in the 12 months after discharge was 33 (IQR: 21–52). General practitioners and allied health services were accessed by 100% and 41% of the cohort, respectively. The median MBS system cost (in Australian dollars) was $2006 (IQR: $162–$3090). Almost half (46%) of the participants had no MBS patient expenditure. The median PBS system cost was $541 (IQR: $62–$1574). For people with ABI, having a traumatic injury or one comorbidity was associated with lower PBS system costs by on average $119 and $134, respectively. We also found that hospitalisation in ABI was associated with higher PBS system costs, by on average $669. Conclusion: There was evidence of high and variable MBS and PBS costs, raising concerns about financial hardship. Future research should focus on identifying any unmet service and prescription needs in the post-acute rehabilitation phase for these populations. What is known about the topic? Acquired brain injury and spinal cord injury incur high long-term health costs, yet little is known about Medicare service use and costs in the early post-acute phase. What does this paper add? This study provides insight into service use and the burden of injury on Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme systems in the 12 months after hospital discharge. High and variable system and patient expenditure are most notable. What are the implications? Highly variable patient costs raise concerns about the access and affordability of sufficient healthcare services in the post-acute rehabilitation period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: End-of-life discussions often are not initiated until close to death, even in the presence of life-limiting illness or frailty. Previous research shows that doctors may not explicitly verbalize approaching end-of-life in the foreseeable future, despite shifting their focus to comfort care. This may limit patients' opportunity to receive information and plan for the future. General Practitioners (GPs) have a key role in caring for increasing numbers of patients approaching end-of-life.Objective: To explore GPs' thought processes when deciding whether to initiate end-of-life discussions.Methods: A qualitative approach was used. We purposively recruited 15 GPs or GP trainees from South-East Queensland, Australia, and each participated in a semi-structured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.Results: Australian GPs believe they have a responsibility to initiate end-of-life conversations, and identify several triggers to do so. Some also describe caution in raising this sensitive topic, related to patient, family, cultural and personal factors.Conclusions: These findings enable the development of approaches to support GPs to initiate end-of-life discussions that are cognizant both of GPs' sense of responsibility for these discussions, and factors that may contribute to caution initiating them, such as anticipated patient response, cultural considerations, societal taboos, family dynamics and personal challenges to doctors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background As doctors who provide care across the life-course, general practitioners (GPs) play a key role in initiating timely end-of-life discussions. Nonetheless, these discussions are often not initiated until close to death. Given the ageing of the population, GPs will be confronted with end-of-life care more often, and this needs to become a core skill for all GPs. Objective To describe GPs' approach to initiating end-of-life discussions. Methods Fifteen GPs or GP trainees from South-East Queensland, Australia, were purposively recruited to participate in a semi-structured interview. We analysed transcripts using a thematic analysis. Results GPs' approach to initiating end-of-life discussions was summarized by four themes: (1) Preparing the ground; (2) finding an entry point; (3) tailoring communication and (4) involving the family. Conclusions Emphasis on the doctor–patient relationship; assessing patient readiness for end-of-life discussions; and sensitive information delivery is consistent with factors previously reported to be important to both GPs and patients in this context. Our findings provide a framework for GPs initiating end-of-life discussions, which must be tailored to patient and GP personality factors. Further research is required to evaluate its outcomes. [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]

Purpose: People with disability have a right to assistive technology devices and services, to support their inclusion and participation in society. User-centred approaches aim to address consumer dissatisfaction and sub-optimal outcomes from assistive technology (AT) provision, but make assumptions of consumer literacy and empowerment. Policy discourses about consumer choice prompt careful reflection, and this paper aims to provide a critical perspective on user involvement in assistive technology provision.Methods: User-centred approaches are considered, using literature to critically reflect on what user involvement means in AT provision. Challenges at the level of interactions between practitioners and consumers, and also the level of markets and policies are discussed, using examples from Australia.Results: There is no unanimous conceptual framework for user-centred practice. Power imbalances and differing perspectives between practitioners and consumers make it difficult for consumers to feel empowered. Online access to information and international suppliers has not surmounted information asymmetries for consumers or lifted the regulation of publicly funded AT devices.Conclusions: Ensuring access and equity in the public provision of AT is challenging in an expanding market with diverse stakeholders. Consumers require personalised information and support to facilitate their involvement and choice in AT provision.Implications for RehabilitationVariations in approaches informing AT provision practices have a profound impact on equity of access and outcomes for consumers.An internationalised and online market for AT devices is increasing the need for effective information provision strategies and services.Power imbalances between practitioners and consumers present barriers to the realisation of user-centred practice. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background A new model of complex diabetes care is provided by a multidisciplinary team which incorporates general practitioner (GP) Clinical Fellows supported by an Endocrinologist and diabetes educator within a community-based general practice setting. This study evaluates the health and clinical benefits of the new model of care, assesses the acceptability of the model to patients, GPs and other health professionals, and examines the cost-effectiveness of the model. Methods and design The study is an open, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial with data collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Participants are identified from new patients on hospital-based diabetes outpatient clinic waiting lists and new GP referrals. Eligible consenting patients are randomised to either a community practice site (intervention) or a hospital site (usual care). In the intervention model, medical care is led by a GP Clinical Fellow in partnership with an Endocrinologist. Quantitative measures include clinical indicators with HbA1c as the primary outcome; patient-reported outcomes include health-related quality of life, mental health and satisfaction with care. Qualitative methods will be used to explore the perspectives and experiences of patients and providers regarding the new model of care. An economic evaluation will also be undertaken. Discussion This model of care seeks to improve the quality and safety of healthcare at the interface between the hospital and primary care sectors for patients with complex diabetes. The study will provide empirical evidence about the impact of the model of care on health outcomes, patient and clinician satisfaction, as well as any economic impacts. Trial registration Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN12612000380897 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]