Search

Background: Since the early 90s, patient navigation programs were introduced in the United States to address inequitable access to cancer care. Programs have since expanded internationally and in scope. The goals of patient navigation programs are to: a) link patients and families to primary care services, specialist care, and community-based health and social services (CBHSS); b) provide more holistic patient-centred care; and, c) identify and resolve patient barriers to care. This paper fills a gap in knowledge to reveal what is known about motivators and factors influencing implementation and maintenance of patient navigation programs in primary care that link patients to CBHSS. It also reports on outcomes from these studies to help identify gaps in research that can inform future studies.Methods: This scoping literature review involved: i) electronic database searches; ii) a web site search; iii) a search of reference lists from literature reviews; and, iv) author follow up. It included papers from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and/or Western Europe published between January 1990 and June 2013 if they discussed navigators or navigation programs in primary care settings that linked patients to CBHSS.Results: Of 34 papers, most originated in the United States (n = 29) while the remainder were from the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Motivators for initiating navigation programs were to: a) improve delivery of health and social care services; b) support and manage specific health needs or specific population needs, and; c) improve quality of life and wellbeing of patients. Eleven factors were found to influence implementation and maintenance of these patient navigation programs. These factors closely aligned with the Diffusion of Innovation in Service Organizations model, thus providing a theoretical foundation to support them. Various positive outcomes were reported for patients, providers and navigators, as well as the health and social care system, although they need to be considered with caution since the majority of studies were descriptive.Conclusions: This study contributes new knowledge that can inform the initiation and maintenance of primary care patient navigation programs that link patients with CBHSS. It also provides directions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care services have not generally been effective in meeting mental health care needs. There is evidence that collaboration between primary care and specialist mental health services can improve clinical and organisational outcomes. It is not clear however what factors enable or hinder effective collaboration. The objective of this study was to examine the factors that enable effective collaboration between specialist mental health services and primary mental health care. Methods: A narrative and thematic review of English language papers published between 1998 and 2009. An expert reference group helped formulate strategies for policy makers. Studies of descriptive and qualitative design from Australia, New Zealand, UK, Europe, USA and Canada were included. Data were extracted on factors reported as enablers or barriers to development of service linkages. These were tabulated by theme at clinical and organisational levels and the inter-relationship between themes was explored. Results: A thematic analysis of 30 papers found the most frequently cited group of factors was "partnership formation", specifically role clarity between health care workers. Other factor groups supporting clinical partnership formation were staff support, clinician attributes, clinic physical features and evaluation and feedback. At the organisational level a supportive institutional environment of leadership and change management was important. The expert reference group then proposed strategies for collaboration that would be seen as important, acceptable and feasible. Because of the variability of study types we did not exclude on quality and findings are weighted by the number of studies. Variability in local service contexts limits the generalisation of findings. Conclusion: The findings provide a framework for health planners to develop effective service linkages in primary mental health care. Our expert reference group proposed five areas of strategy for policy makers that address organisational level support, joint clinical problem solving, local joint care guidelines, staff training and supervision and feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health systems must reorient towards preventative and co-ordinated care to reduce hospital demand and achieve positive and fiscally responsible outcomes for older persons with complex needs. Integrated care models can improve outcomes by aligning primary practice with the specialist health and social services required to manage complex needs. This paper describes the impact of a community-facing program that integrates care at the primary-secondary interface on the rate of Emergency Department (ED) presentation and hospital admissions among older people with complex needs.Methods: The Older Persons Enablement and Rehabilitation for Complex Health Conditions (OPEN ARCH) study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with a stepped wedge cluster design. General practitioners (GPs; n = 14) in primary practice within the Cairns region are considered 'clusters' each comprising a mixed number of participants. 80 community-dwelling persons over 70 years of age if non-Indigenous and over 50 years of age if Indigenous were included at baseline with no new participants added during the study. Clusters were randomly assigned to one of three steps that represent the time at which they would commence the OPEN ARCH intervention, and the subsequent intervention duration (3, 6, or 9 months). Each participant was its own control. GPs and participants were not blinded. The primary outcomes were ED presentations and hospital admissions. Data were collected from Queensland Health Casemix data and analysed with multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regression modelling to estimate the effectiveness of the OPEN ARCH intervention. Data were analysed at the cluster and participant levels.Results: Five clusters were randomised to steps 1 and 2, and 4 clusters randomised to step 3. All clusters (n = 14) completed the trial accounting for 80 participants. An effect size of 9% in service use (95% CI) was expected. The OPEN ARCH intervention was found to not make a statistically significant difference to ED presentations or admissions. However, a stabilising of ED presentations and a trend toward lower hospitalisation rates over time was observed.Conclusions: While this study detected no statistically significant change in ED presentations or hospital admissions, a plateauing of ED presentation and admission rates is a clinically significant finding for older persons with complex needs. Multi-sectoral integrated programs of care require an adequate preparation period and sufficient duration of intervention for effectiveness to be measured.Trial Registration: The OPEN ARCH study received ethical approval from the Far North Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee, HREC/17/QCH/104-1174 and is registered on the Australian and New Zealand Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000198325p . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a need for scalable clinician education in rational medication prescribing and rational ordering of pathology and imaging to help improve patient safety and enable more efficient utilisation of healthcare resources. Our wider study evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted education intervention for general practitioners (GPs) in rational prescribing and ordering of pathology and imaging tests, in the context of Australia's online patient-controlled health record system, My Health Record (MHR), and found evidence for measurable behaviour change in pathology ordering among participants who completed the educational activities. This current study explored the mechanisms of behaviour change brought about by the intervention, with a view to informing the development of similar interventions in the future. Methods: This mixed methods investigation used self-reported questionnaires at baseline and post-education on MHR use and rational prescribing and test ordering. These were analysed using multi-level ordinal logistic regression models. Semi-structured interviews pre- and post-intervention were also conducted and were analysed thematically using the COM-B framework. Results: Of the 106 GPs recruited into the study, 60 completed baseline and 37 completed post-education questionnaires. Nineteen participants were interviewed at baseline and completion. Analysis of questionnaires demonstrated a significant increase in confidence using MHR and in self-reported frequency of MHR use, post-education compared with baseline. There were also similar improvements in confidence across the cohort pre-post education in deprescribing, frequency of review of pathology ordering regimens and evidence-based imaging. The qualitative findings showed an increase in GPs' perceived capability with, and the use of MHR, at post-education compared with baseline. Participants saw the education as an opportunity for learning, for reinforcing what they already knew, and for motivating change of behaviour in increasing their utilisation of MHR, and ordering fewer unnecessary tests and prescriptions. Conclusions: Our education intervention appeared to provide its effects through providing opportunity, increasing capability and enhancing motivation to increase MHR knowledge and usage, as well as rational prescribing and test ordering behaviour. There were overlapping effects of skills acquisition and confidence across intervention arms, which may have contributed to wider changes in behaviour than the specific topic area addressed in the education. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000010998) (09/01/2020). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Australia is one of many nations struggling with the challenges of delivering quality primary health care (PHC) to increasing numbers of refugees. The OPTIMISE project represents a collaboration between 12 organisations to generate a model of integrated refugee PHC suitable for uptake throughout Australia. This paper describes the methodology of one component; an outreach practice facilitation intervention, directed towards improving the quality of PHC received by refugees in Australian general practices.Methods: Our mixed methods study will use a cluster stepped wedge randomised controlled trial design set in 3 urban regions of high refugee resettlement in Australia. The intervention was build upon regional partnerships of policy advisors, clinicians, academics and health service managers. Following a regional needs assessment, the partnerships reached consensus on four core areas for intervention in general practice (GP): recording of refugee status; using interpreters; conducting comprehensive health assessments; and referring to refugee specialised services. Refugee health staff trained in outreach practice facilitation techniques will work with GP clinics to modify practice routines relating to the four core areas. 36 general practice clinics with no prior involvement in a refugee health focused practice facilitation will be randomly allocated into early and late intervention groups. The primary outcome will be changes in number of claims for Medical Benefit Service reimbursed comprehensive health assessments among patients identified as being from a refugee background. Changes in practice performance for this and 3 secondary outcomes will be evaluated using multilevel mixed effects models. Baseline data collection will comprise (i) pre-intervention provider survey; (ii) two surveys documenting each practices' structure and approaches to delivery of care to refugees. De-identified medical record data will be collected at baseline, at the end of the intervention and 6 and 12 months following completion.Discussion: OPTIMISE will test whether a regionally oriented practice facilitation initiative can improve the quality of PHC delivered to refugees. Findings have the potential to influence policy and practice in broader primary care settings.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001970235 , 05/12/2018, Retrospectively registered. Protocol Version 1, 21/08/2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]