Search

Millions of Australians use the private health system every year. They should receive safe, high-quality, value-based care. However, poor policy and inadequate regulation of medical technology is driving low-value care at great expense to consumers and the broader health system. Key drivers include the Prescribed List of Medical Devices and Human Tissue, gaps in quality and safety controls for devices being used, and marketing and conflicts of interest. All of these should be addressed to reduce low-value care in Australia's private health system, so consumers are protected from harm and limited health budgets are used effectively. What is known about the topic? With health expenditure rising unsustainably, there is a growing focus on ways to reduce low-value care to improve health outcomes and eliminate unnecessary costs. What does this paper add? This paper details drivers of low-value care in Australia's private health system and recommendations to overcome them. Drivers include the Prescribed List of Medical Devices, gaps in safety and quality controls, and conflicts of interest and marketing. What are the implications for practitioners? These insights are relevant to clinicians, researchers, policymakers, consumers and health business leaders with an interest in low-value care. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. The aim of the present study was to describe and compare organisational guidance documents related to recognising and responding to clinical deterioration across five health services in Victoria, Australia. Methods. Guidance documents were obtained from five health services, comprising 13 acute care hospitals, eight subacute care hospitals and approximately 5500 beds. Analysis was guided by a specific policy analysis framework and a priori themes. Results. In all, 22 guidance documents and five graphic observation and response charts were reviewed. Variation was observed in terminology, content and recommendations between the health services. Most health services' definitions of physiological observations fulfilled national standards in terms of minimum parameters and frequency of assessment. All health services had three-tier rapid response systems (RRS) in place at both acute and subacute care sites, consisting of activation criteria and an expected response. RRS activation criteria varied between sites, with all sites requiring modifications to RRS activation criteria to be made by medical staff. All sites had processes for patient and family escalation of care. Conclusions. Current guidance documents related to the frequency of observations and escalation of care omit the vital role of nurses in these processes. Inconsistencies between health services may lead to confusion in a mobile workforce and may reduce system dependability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]