Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association
-
Limited literature exists on the practice of clinical supervision (CS) of professional physiotherapists despite current Australian safety and quality health standards stating that CS is to be provided to all physiotherapists. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CS of physiotherapists working in an Australian public health service. ⋯ Within this publicly funded physiotherapy department there was uncertainty about the effectiveness of CS, with more than half the physiotherapists rating their supervision as less than effective, suggesting there is opportunity for improvement in the practice of physiotherapy CS. Physiotherapists scored lowest in the normative domain, indicating that they found it difficult to find time for CS.
-
The aim of this study is to identify the extent to which the Medicare item numbers and incentives, introduced in July 2011, have been effective in stimulating telehealth activity in Australia. ⋯ Medicare rebates and incentives, which are generous by world standards, have resulted in specialist video consultations being provided to underserved areas, although gaps still remain that need new models of care to be developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: Video consultations have been rebated by Medicare since July 2011 as a means of increasing access to specialist care in rural areas, aged care facilities and Aboriginal health services. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD?: The uptake of this telehealth initiative has grown over time, but still remains low. For half the video consultations the patient was supported by an on-site healthcare provider, most commonly a general practitioner. Geriatrics and psychiatry are the specialties with the highest proportional uptake. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS?: New models of care with a greater focus on consultation-liaison with primary care providers need to be developed to realise the potential of this initiative and to fill continuing gaps in services.
-
Time spent in the emergency department (ED) before admission to hospital is often considered an important key performance indicator (KPI). Throughout Australia and New Zealand, there is no standard definition of 'time of admission' for patients admitted through the ED. By using data submitted to the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database, the aim was to determine the differing methods used to define hospital admission time and assess how these impact on the calculation of time spent in the ED before admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). ⋯ Different methods are used in Australia and New Zealand to define admission time to hospital. Professional bodies, hospitals and jurisdictions should ensure standardisation of definitions for appropriate interpretation of KPIs as well as for the interpretation of studies assessing the impact of admission time to ICU from the ED. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: There are standards for the maximum time spent in the ED internationally, but these standards vary greatly across Australia. The definition of such a standard is critically important not only to patient care, but also in the assessment of hospital outcomes. Key performance indicators rely on quality data to improve decision-making. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD?: This paper quantifies the variability of times measured and analyses why the variability exists. It also discusses the impact of this variability on assessment of outcomes and provides suggestions to improve standardisation. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS?: This paper provides a clearer view on standards regarding length of stay in the ICU, highlighting the importance of key performance indicators, as well as the quality of data that underlies them. This will lead to significant changes in the way we standardise and interpret data regarding length of stay.
-
There is a paucity of research on the quality of evidence relating to primary care workforce models. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the quality of evidence on diabetes primary care workforce models in Australia. ⋯ More rigorous studies of diabetes workforce models are needed to determine whether these interventions improve patient outcomes and, if they do, represent value for money. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: Although health systems with strong primary care orientations have been associated with enhanced access, equity and population health, the primary care workforce is facing several challenges. These include a mal-distribution of resources (supply side) and health outcomes (demand side), inconsistent support for teamwork care models, and a lack of enhanced clinical inter-professional education and/or training opportunities. These challenges are exacerbated by an ageing health workforce and general population, as well as a population that has increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi-morbidity. Although several policy directions have been advocated to address these challenges, there is a lack of high-quality evidence about which primary care workforce models are best (and which models represent better value for money than current practice) and what the health effects are for patients. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD?: This study demonstrated several strengths and weaknesses of Australian diabetes models of care studies. In particular, only five of the 14 studies assessed were designed in a way that enabled them to achieve a Level II or I rating (and hence the 'best' level of evidence), based on the NHMRC's (2000, 2001) frameworks for assessing scientific evidence. The majority of studies risked the introduction of bias and thus may have incorrect conclusions. Only a few studies described clearly what the intervention and the comparator were and thus could be easily replicated. Only two studies included cost-effectiveness studies of their interventions compared with usual care. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS?: Although there has been an increase in the number of primary care workforce models implemented in Australia, there is a need for more rigorous research to assess whether these interventions are effective in producing improved health outcomes and represent better value for money than current practice. Researchers and policymakers need to make decisions based on high-quality evidence; it is not obvious what effect the evidence is having on primary care workforce reform.