Search

Background: Advances in screening and treatments for colorectal cancer (CRC) have improved survival rates, leading to a large population of CRC survivors. Treatment for CRC can cause long-term side-effects and functioning impairments. General practitioners (GPs) have a role in meeting survivorship care needs of this group of survivors. We explored CRC survivors' experiences of managing the consequences of treatment in the community and their perspective on the GP's role in post-treatment care. Methods: This was a qualitative study using an interpretive descriptive approach. Adult participants no longer actively receiving treatment for CRC were asked about: side-effects post-treatment; experiences of GP-coordinated care; perceived care gaps; and perceived GP role in post-treatment care. Thematic analysis was used for data analysis. Results: A total of 19 interviews were conducted. Participants experienced side-effects that significantly impacted their lives; many they felt ill-prepared for. Disappointment and frustration was expressed with the healthcare system when expectations about preparation for post-treatment effects were not met. The GP was considered vital in survivorship care. Participants' unmet needs led to self-management, self-directed information seeking and sourcing referral options, leaving them feeling like their own care coordinator. Disparities in post-treatment care between metropolitan and rural participants were observed. Conclusion: There is a need for improved discharge preparation and information for GPs, and earlier recognition of concerns following CRC treatment to ensure timely management and access to services in the community, supported by system-level initiatives and appropriate interventions. Colorectal cancer survivors can experience ongoing side-effects and functioning impairments long after completing treatment. This study explored how colorectal cancer survivors manage their consequences of treatment in the community. Colorectal cancer survivors were interviewed about the side-effects they experienced after treatment; their experiences of general practitioner-coordinated care; perceived care gaps; and their perception of the general practitioner role in post-treatment survivorship care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain is the largest cause of years lived with a disability in Australia, and there is an urgent need for innovations to address global gaps between evidence and practice. Methods: This study was a phase 1, single-group, pre–post pilot trial of My Back My Plan, a primary care program for acute low back pain. The trial was conducted at MQ Health Primary Care at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. The primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. Results: Fourteen participants were recruited to the study, with 79% and 93% followed up at 1 and 3 months respectively. Ten general practitioners and four physiotherapists at MQ Health Primary Care delivered the intervention. Although the rate of patient recruitment to the trial was low, other aspects of feasibility (such as intervention adherence and safety) were high. Participating clinicians reported that the program was useful for patients, and the majority stated that the program facilitated person-centred care. Patients rated My Back My Plan as highly acceptable, indicating that they had a better understanding of their low back pain, they were given personalised care and were more confident in self-managing their low back pain. At the 3 month follow-up, 85% of participants stated they were very likely to recommend the program to others. Conclusions: This study suggests that the co-designed, contextually refined MBMP program for MQ Health Primary Care is acceptable to people with acute onset low back pain and warrants further evaluation. Low back pain is the largest cause of years lived with a disability in Australia, and there is an urgent need for innovations to address global gaps between evidence and practice. Our study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of My Back My Plan, a primary care program for acute low back pain. My Back My Plan facilitates delivery of person-centred care and was rated as highly acceptable to people with acute onset low back pain, and thereby warrants further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain is the leading worldwide cause of years lost to disability and the problem is worsening. This paper describes and demonstrates the scholarly development and contextual refinement of a primary care program for acute low back pain in Sydney, Australia. Methods: Hybrid theoretical frameworks were applied, and co-design was used to contextualise the program to the local healthcare setting. Results: The program was developed in four stages. In stage 1, the scientific evidence about management of acute low back pain in primary care was examined. In stage 2, stakeholders (patients and clinicians) were consulted in nationwide surveys. Data from stages 1 and 2 were used to design an initial version of the program, called My Back My Plan. Stage 3 involved the contextual refinement of the program to the local setting, MQ Health Primary Care. This was achieved by co-design with primary care clinicians and patients who had sought care for low back pain at MQ Health Primary Care clinics. In stage 4, a panel of Australian experts on clinical care for low back pain reviewed the contextualised version of My Back My Plan and final amendments were made. Conclusion: My Back My Plan has been developed using an innovative scholarly approach to intervention development. Low back pain is the leading worldwide cause of years lost to disability and the problem is worsening. Our study aimed to develop and test a low-cost, high-value, scalable primary care treatment program for acute low back pain. The 'My Back My Plan' program has been developed using an innovative scholarly approach to intervention development, including co-design with consumers and clinicians, and optimises provision of integrated clinical care that is individualised and person-centred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low back pain (LBP) is the highest cause of years lived with a disability in Australia and the most frequent musculoskeletal condition for which patients seek primary care. The aims of this study were to: (1) evaluate the current practices and perspectives of Australian GPs and physiotherapists managing acute back pain; and (2) explore alignment of care with clinical guidelines. This was a prospective cross-sectional Internet survey conducted from March 2018 to May 2018 of experienced Australian GPs and physiotherapists. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse all quantitative outcomes. Two hundred primary care practitioners (72% physiotherapists and 28% GPs) from all States and Territories of Australia completed the survey. Most primary care practitioners were familiar with clinical guidelines for acute back pain management and reported delivery of many of the core components of guideline-based care, including education, advice about favourable prognosis, encouraging activity and self-management and discouraging prolonged bed rest. Deviations from guideline-based care were common, including provision of analgesic medication, passive therapies and using radiological imaging. Australian primary care clinicians in this sample were aware of back pain guidelines and typically implement care that is consistent with guideline-based recommendations. Divergences from these guidelines may indicate that primary care practitioners are delivering evidence-based and person-centred care that integrates clinicians' judgement with patients' preferences and guideline-based evidence. Low back pain (LBP) is the most burdensome condition globally and experts have recently advocated for clinicians to deliver high-value care based on clinical guidelines. However, the current practices and perspectives of primary care practitioners delivering care for acute LBP in Australia are unknown. This study found that when managing acute back pain, most GPs and physiotherapists included key components of guideline-based care, although a person-centred approach often required alternative management strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This debate discusses the potential merits of a New Graduate Nurse Transition to Primary Health Care Program as an untested but potential nursing workforce development and sustainability strategy. Increasingly in Australia, health policy is focusing on the role of general practice and multidisciplinary teams in meeting the service needs of ageing populations in the community. Primary health care nurses who work in general practice are integral members of the multidisciplinary team -- but this workforce is ageing and predicted to face increasing shortages in the future. At the same time, Australia is currently experiencing a surplus of and a corresponding lack of employment opportunities for new graduate nurses. This situation is likely to compound workforce shortages in the future. A national nursing workforce plan that addresses supply and demand issues of primary health care nurses is required. Innovative solutions are required to support and retain the current primary health care nursing workforce, whilst building a skilled and sustainable workforce for the future. Discussion: This debate article discusses the primary health care nursing workforce dilemma currently facing policy makers in Australia and presents an argument for the potential value of a New Graduate Transition to Primary Health Care Program as a workforce development and sustainability strategy. An exploration of factors that may contribute or hinder transition program for new graduates in primary health care implementation is considered. Summary: A graduate transition program to primary health care may play an important role in addressing primary health care workforce shortages in the future. There are, however, a number of factors that need to be simultaneously addressed if a skilled and sustainable workforce for the future is to be realised. The development of a transition program to primary health care should be based on a number of core principles and be subjected to both a summative and cost-effectiveness evaluation involving all key stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]