Search

The redefining of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from an acute disease to a manageable chronic illness has reshaped the focus of care, emphasising clinical outcomes and sidelining the complex social barriers many people living with HIV (PLHIV) still face. This parallels changes in the location of HIV care in Australia, with many PLHIV seeking care from private general practitioners whose ability to address complex social issues is constrained by limitations of time and resources. In response, peer navigation has emerged as a model of care implemented by some HIV‐based community health organisations seeking to support PLHIV's biomedical and psychosocial needs. However, there is limited understanding of how peer navigation operates in community settings or of the way these programmes integrate with primary care. This paper is the first to explore peer navigation from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs), with experience in treating PLHIV, to understand the role they see for peer navigators (PNs) in supporting PLHIV. Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews were conducted with six GPs (11.5% of specialty HIV GPs in Queensland, Australia) to examine their views and experiences of peer navigation in the context of HIV care. GPs highlighted the complexities of care for PLHIV and the need for additional resources and supports for psychosocial care. GPs valued peer navigation as part of a patient support network and bridge to health and social care systems. PNs normalised HIV, alleviating fear and stigma, educating and translating clinical information for patients. However, a key challenge was the absence of direct communication pathways with PNs. Peer navigation has clear potential in supporting the care of PLHIV, to alleviate constraints in GP settings and expand HIV care beyond the clinic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with complex chronic conditions experience fragmentation of care, unnecessary hospitalization and reduced quality of life, with an increased incidence of poor health outcomes. Aim(s): The aim of this paper was to explore how nurse navigators manage client care. This was achieved through an examination of narratives provided by the nurse navigator that evaluated their scope of practice. Method(s): All nurse navigators employed by Queensland Health were invited to participate in a study evaluating the effectiveness of the service. Eighty‐four self‐reported vignettes were thematically analysed to understand the work from the nurses' perspectives. Results: Two themes emerged from the vignettes. Theme 1, the layers of complexity, is comprised of three sub‐themes: the complex patient, the complex system and patient outcomes. Theme 2, professional attributes, has two sub‐themes: person‐centred care and clinical excellence. Conclusion: Navigators innovatively integrate services and address the fragmented nature of the health system. They apply expert clinical and social skills, through consistent and robust communication, to meet the needs of those with multiple chronic conditions. Implications for nursing management: Results provide insight into the new role, illuminating the work they achieve, despite system complexities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indigenous patient navigator (IPN) programmes show promise in addressing barriers to cancer care and facilitation of patient self‐efficacy. The purpose of this paper is to describe and reflect upon the experience of training an IPN and implementation of the intervention in the Australian context with Indigenous cancer patients. Randomised clinical trial might provide the best available evaluation measure of an intervention but caution should be taken in the implementation process. Socio‐cultural aspects and training can affect the conduct of this type of intervention. We report here five issues needing consideration prior to implementing such intervention. Specifically: (1) recognition of the collective bonds within Indigenous community and understanding by IPN of the degree of personal assistance perceived as not intrusive by the patient; (2) conduct ongoing evaluation of the different role of an IPN involved in this intervention care provider vs. researcher. (3) meaningful engagement develops from a trusting/collaborative relationship between research team and study site staff which may not occur in the study time frame; (4) existing skills as well as training provided may not translate in the IPN understanding and aligning with the study objectives/research values; (5) recruitment of participants requires innovative and highly flexible strategies to be successful. [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]