Search

Community-based primary care, such as general practice (GP) or urgent care, serves as the primary point of access to healthcare for most Australians and New Zealanders. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created significant and ongoing disruptions to primary care. Traditional research methods have contributed to gaps in understanding the experiences of primary care workers during the pandemic. This paper describes a novel research design and method that intended to capture the evolving impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care workers in Australia and New Zealand. Recurrent, rapid cycle surveys were fielded from May 2020 through December 2021 in Australia, and May 2020 through February 2021 in New Zealand. Rapid survey development, fielding, triangulated analysis and dissemination of results allowed close to real-time communication of relevant issues among general practice workers, researchers and policy-makers. A conceptual model is presented to support longitudinal analysis of primary care worker experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia and New Zealand, and key learnings from applying this novel method are discussed. This paper will assist future research teams in development and execution of policy-relevant research in times of change and may inform further areas of interest for COVID-19 research in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Falls are common among older people, and General Practitioners (GPs) could play an important role in implementing strategies to manage fall risk. Despite this, fall prevention is not a routine activity in general practice settings. The iSOLVE cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to evaluate implementation of a fall prevention decision tool in general practice. This paper sought to describe the strategies used and reflect on the enablers and barriers relevant to successful recruitment of general practices, GPs and their patients.Methods: Recruitment was conducted within the geographical area of a Primary Health Network in Northern Sydney, Australia. General practices and GPs were engaged via online surveys, mailed invitations to participate, educational workshops, practitioner networks and promotional practice visits. Patients 65 years or older were recruited via mailed invitations, incorporating the practice letterhead and the name(s) of participating GP(s). Observations of recruitment strategies, results and enabling factors were recorded in field notes as descriptive and narrative data, and analysed using mixed-methods.Results: It took 19 months to complete recruitment of 27 general practices, 75 GPs and 560 patients. The multiple strategies used to engage general practices and GPs were collectively useful in reaching the targeted sample size. Practice visits were valuable in engaging GPs and staff, establishing interest in fall prevention and commitment to the trial. A mix of small, medium and large practices were recruited. While some were recruited as a whole-practice, other practices had few or half of the number of GPs recruited. The importance of preventing falls in older patients, simplicity of research design, provision of resources and logistic facilitation of patient recruitment appealed to GPs. Recruitment of older patients was successfully achieved by mailed invitations which was a strategy that was familiar to practice staff and patients. Patient response rates were above the expected 10% for most practices. Many practices (n = 17) achieved the targeted number of 20 or more patients.Conclusions: Recruitment in general practice settings can be successfully achieved through multiple recruitment strategies, effective communication and rapport building, ensuring research topic and design suit general practice needs, and using familiar communication strategies to engage patients.Trial Registration: The trial was prospectively registered on 29 April 2015 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry www.anzctr.org.au (trial ID: ACTRN12615000401550). [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: Quality smoking data is crucial for assessing smoking-related health risk and eligibility for interventions related to that risk. Smoking information collected in primary care practices (PCPs) is a major data source; however, little is known about the PCP smoking data quality. This project compared PCP smoking data to that collected in the Māori and Pacific Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) screening programme. Methods: A two stage review was conducted. In Stage 1, data quality was assessed by comparing the PCP smoking data recorded close to AAA screening episodes with the data collected from participants at the AAA screening session. Inter-rater reliability was analysed using Cohen's kappa scores. In Stage 2, an audit of longitudinal smoking status was conducted, of a subset of participants potentially misclassified in Stage 1. Data were compared in three groups: current smoker (smoke at least monthly), ex-smoker (stopped > 1 month ago) and never smoker (smoked < 100 cigarettes in lifetime). Results: Of the 1841 people who underwent AAA screening, 1716 (93%) had PCP smoking information. Stage 1 PCP smoking data showed 82% concordance with the AAA data (adjusted kappa 0.76). Fewer current or ex-smokers were recorded in PCP data. In the Stage 2 analysis of discordant and missing data (N = 313), 212 were enrolled in the 29 participating PCPs, and of these 13% were deceased and 41% had changed PCP. Of the 93 participants still enrolled in the participating PCPs, smoking status had been updated for 43%. Data on quantity, duration, or quit date of smoking were largely missing in PCP records. The AAA data of ex-smokers who were classified as never smokers in the Stage 2 PCP data (N = 27) showed a median smoking cessation duration of 32 years (range 0–50 years), with 85% (N = 23) having quit more than 15 years ago. Conclusions: PCP smoking data quality compared with the AAA data is consistent with international findings. PCP data captured fewer current and ex-smokers, suggesting ongoing improvement is important. Intervention programmes based on smoking status should consider complementary mechanisms to ensure eligible individuals are not missed from programme invitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The demand for mental health services in Australia is substantial and has grown beyond the capacity of the current workforce. As a result, it is currently difficult for many to access secondary healthcare providers. Within the secondary healthcare sector, however, peer workers who have lived experience of managing mental health conditions have been increasingly employed to intentionally use their journey of recovery in supporting others living with mental health conditions and their communities. Currently, the presence of peer workers in primary care has been limited, despite the potential benefits of providing supports in conjunction with GPs and secondary healthcare providers. Methods: This stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to evaluate a lived experience peer support intervention for accessing mental health care in primary care (PS-PC). Four medical practices across Australia will be randomly allocated to switch from control to intervention, until all practices are delivering the PS-PC intervention. The study will enrol 66 patients at each practice (total sample size of 264). Over a period of 3–4 months, 12 h of practical and emotional support provided by lived experience peer workers will be available to participants. Scale-based questionnaires will inform intervention efficacy in terms of mental health outcomes (e.g., self-efficacy) and other health outcomes (e.g., healthcare-related costs) over four time points. Other perspectives will be explored through scales completed by approximately 150 family members or carers (carer burden) and 16 peer workers (self-efficacy) pre- and post-intervention, and 20 medical practice staff members (attitudes toward peer workers) at the end of each study site's involvement in the intervention. Interviews (n = 60) and six focus groups held toward the end of each study site's involvement will further explore the views of participants, family members or carers, peer workers, and practice staff to better understand the efficacy and acceptability of the intervention. Discussion: This mixed-methods, multi-centre, stepped-wedge controlled study will be the first to evaluate the implementation of peer workers in the primary care mental health care sector. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12623001189617. Registered on 17 November 2023, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=386715 [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: The evidence for the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing is growing, and guidelines exist for the use of PGx testing to inform prescribing of 13 antidepressants. Although previous randomised controlled trials of PGx testing for antidepressant prescribing have shown an association with remission of depression in clinical psychiatric settings, few trials have focused on the primary care setting, where most antidepressant prescribing occurs. Methods: The PRESIDE Trial is a stratified double-blinded randomised controlled superiority trial that aims to evaluate the impact of a PGx-informed antidepressant prescribing report (compared with standard prescribing using the Australian Therapeutic Guidelines) on depressive symptoms after 12 weeks, when delivered in primary care. Six hundred seventy-two patients aged 18–65 years of general practitioners (GPs) in Victoria with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), will be randomly allocated 1:1 to each arm using a computer-generated sequence. Participants and GPs will be blinded to the study arm. The primary outcome is a difference between arms in the change of depressive symptoms, measured using the PHQ-9 after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include a difference between the arms in change in PHQ-9 score at 4, 8 and 26 weeks, proportion in remission at 12 weeks, a change in side effect profile of antidepressant medications, adherence to antidepressant medications, change in quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence as to whether PGx-informed antidepressant prescribing is clinically efficacious and cost-effective. It will inform national and international policy and guidelines about the use of PGx to select antidepressants for people with moderate to severe depressive symptoms presenting in primary care. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000181808. Registered on 22 February 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care in Aotearoa New Zealand is largely delivered by general practices, heavily subsidised by government. Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840) guarantees equal health outcomes for Māori and non-Māori, but differences are stark and longstanding. Seven models of primary care have evolved. We hypothesised that patient health outcomes would differ between models of care; and that Māori, Pacific peoples and those living in material deprivation would have poorer outcomes from primary care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patient-level data from national datasets and practices, at 30 September 2018, using multilevel mixed effects regression analyses (patients clustered within practices). Primary outcomes, considered to be measures of unmet need for primary care, were polypharmacy (≥ 65 years), HbA1c testing in adults with diabetes, childhood immunisations (6 months), ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations (0–14, 45–64 years) and emergency department attendances. Explanatory variables adjusted for patient and practice characteristics. Equity, by model of care, ethnicity and deprivation, was assumed if they showed no significant association with patient outcomes. Patient characteristics included: age, ethnicity, deprivation, multi-morbidity, first specialist assessments and practice continuity. Practice characteristics included: size, funding and doctor continuity. Clinical input (consultations and time with nurses and doctors) was considered a measure of practice response. Results: The study included 924 general practices with 4,491,964 enrolled patients. Traditional practices enrolled 73% of the population, but, on average, the proportion of Māori, Pacific and people living with material deprivation was low in any one Traditional practice. Patients with high health needs disproportionately enrolled in Māori, Pacific and Trust/NGO practices. There were multiple associations between models of care and patient health outcomes in fully adjusted regressions. No one model of care out-performed others across all outcomes. Patients with higher health need received more clinical input but this was insufficient to achieve equity in all outcomes. Being a Māori or Pacific patient, or living in material deprivation, across models of care, remained associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusions: Model-level associations with poor patient outcomes suggest inequity in measures that might be used to target investment in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are persistent ethnic gaps in uptake of child healthcare services in New Zealand (NZ), despite increasing policy to promote equitable access. We examined ethnic differences in the uptake of immunisation and primary healthcare services at different ages and quantified the contribution of relevant explanatory factors, in order to identify potential points of intervention. Methods: We used data from the Growing Up in New Zealand birth cohort study, including children born between 2009 and 2010. Econometric approaches were used to explore underlying mechanisms behind ethnic differences in service uptake. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for mother, child, household, socioeconomic, mobility, and social factors. Decomposition analysis was used to assess the proportion of each ethnic gap that could be explained, as well as the main drivers behind the explained component. These analyses were repeated for four data time-points. Results: Six thousand eight hundred twenty-two mothers were enrolled during the antenatal survey, and children were followed up at 9-months, 2-years and 4-years. In univariable models, there were ethnic gaps in uptake of immunisation and primary care services. After adjusting for covariates in multivariable models, compared to NZ Europeans, Asian and Pacific children had higher timeliness and completeness of immunisation at all time-points, while indigenous Māori had lower timeliness of first-year vaccines despite high intentions to immunise. Asian and Pacific mothers were less likely to have their first-choice lead maternity caregiver (LMC) than NZ Europeans mothers, and Māori and Asian mothers were less likely to be satisfied with their general practitioner (GP) at 2-years. Healthcare utilisation was strongly influenced by socio-economic, mobility and social factors including ethnic discrimination. In decomposition models comparing Māori to NZ Europeans, the strongest drivers for timely first-year immunisations and GP satisfaction (2-years) were household composition and household income. Gaps between Pacific and NZ Europeans in timely first-year immunisations and choice of maternity carer were largely unexplained by factors included in the models. Conclusions: Ethnic gaps in uptake of child healthcare services vary by ethnicity, service, and time-point, and are driven by different factors. Addressing healthcare disparities will require interventions tailored to specific ethnic groups, as well as addressing underlying social determinants and structural racism. Gaps that remain unexplained by our models require further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can predict the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and target screening more precisely than current guidelines using age and family history alone. Primary care, as a far-reaching point of healthcare and routine provider of cancer screening and risk information, may be an ideal location for their widespread implementation.Methods: This trial aims to determine whether the SCRIPT intervention results in more risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months in individuals attending general practice, compared with standard cancer risk reduction information. The SCRIPT intervention consists of a CRC PRS, tailored risk-specific screening recommendations and a risk report for participants and their GP, delivered in general practice. Patients aged between 45 and 70 inclusive, attending their GP, will be approached for participation. For those over 50, only those overdue for CRC screening will be eligible to participate. Two hundred and seventy-four participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arms, stratified by general practice, using a computer-generated allocation sequence. The primary outcome is risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months. For those in the intervention arm, risk-appropriate screening is defined using PRS-derived risk; for those in the control arm, it is defined using family history and national screening guidelines. Timing, type and results of the previous screening are considered in both arms. Objective health service data will capture screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes include cancer-specific worry, risk perception, predictors of CRC screening behaviour, screening intentions and health service use at 1, 6 and 12 months post-intervention delivery.Discussion: This trial aims to determine whether a PRS-derived personalised CRC risk estimate delivered in primary care increases risk-appropriate CRC screening. A future population risk-stratified CRC screening programme could incorporate risk assessment within primary care while encouraging adherence to targeted screening recommendations.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000092897p. Registered on 1 February 2021. [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]

Background: Australian guidelines recommend that all people aged 50-70 years old actively consider taking daily low-dose aspirin (100-300 mg per day) for 2.5 to 5 years to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the change of national CRC prevention guidelines, there has been no active implementation of the guidelines into clinical practice. We aim to test the efficacy of a health consultation and decision aid, using a novel expected frequency tree (EFT) to present the benefits and harms of low dose aspirin prior to a general practice consultation with patients aged 50-70 years, on informed decision-making and uptake of aspirin.Methods: Approximately five to seven general practices in Victoria, Australia, will be recruited to participate. Patients 50-70 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner (GP) for any reason, will be invited to participate in the trial. Two hundred fifty-eight eligible participants will be randomly allocated 1:1 to intervention or active control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice, sex, and mode of trial delivery (face-to-face or teletrial). There are two co-primary outcomes: informed decision-making at 1-month post randomisation, measured by the Multi-dimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), and self-reported daily use of aspirin at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict at 1-month and other behavioural changes to reduce CRC risk at both time points.Discussion: This trial will test the efficacy of novel methods for implementing national guidelines to support informed decision-making about taking aspirin in 50-70-year-olds to reduce the risk of CRC and other chronic diseases.Trial Registration: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12620001003965 . Registered on 10 October 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advanced practitioner services, such as those nurse practitioners and pharmacist prescribers provide, are an opportunity to improve health care delivery. In New Zealand, these practitioners remain underutilised, despite research suggesting they offer safe and effective care, and considerable international literature recording patient satisfaction with these roles. This study aimed to explore factors underlying consumer satisfaction with primary health care nurse practitioner and pharmacist prescriber services.Methods: As part of a larger realist evaluation, 21 individuals receiving advanced practitioner services participated in semi-structured interviews. These interviews were transcribed and coded against context-mechanism-outcome configurations tested and refined throughout the research.Results: Study findings emphasise the importance of consumer confidence in the provider as a mechanism for establishing advanced practitioner roles. Underlying this confidence is a recognition that these practitioners work in a more accessible manner, engage at the individual's 'level', and operate with passion.Conclusions: This research offers learnings to re-engineer service delivery within primary health care to make best use of the entire health care team by including consumers in the design and introduction of new roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nurse-led models of comprehensive geriatric assessment and care coordination can improve health management as well as reduce hospitalisations for high risk community dwelling older people. This study investigated the effect on healthcare utilisation of systematic case finding to identify high risk older people in the community with a subsequent comprehensive assessment and care coordination intervention by a Gerontology Nurse Specialist based in primary care.Methods: This was a controlled before-after study design located within primary healthcare practices in Auckland, New Zealand. An intervention model was initiated within two primary healthcare practices and involved a screening tool to identify high risk older people with succeeding gerontology nurse specialist assessment and care coordination. The comparison group included older people who received usual care at three comparable primary healthcare practices. The primary outcome measure was acute hospital admissions. Secondary outcomes included hospital re-admissions, length of stay, emergency department presentations, residential care admissions, and community contacts.Results: A total of 579 older people were posted the screening tool in the intervention group, with 517 completed screens (89% response rate) formulating the intervention group. A total of 101 older people were identified as high risk from these screens (20%). The comparison group comprised 883 older people. Comparing the intervention and comparison group, no statistical differences were found for hospital admissions, emergency department presentations, hospital re-admissions, length of stay, or residential care admission. Community physiotherapy showed a statistically significant increase for the intervention compared to the comparison group (p = 0.03). Non-significant findings revealed decreased risk of entering residential care and fewer frequent hospital re-admissions for the intervention group when compared with the comparison group.Conclusions: This specialist nurse-led intervention involving comprehensive assessment and care coordination care did not appear superior to usual care, however, there is benefit to exploring a more robust randomised controlled trial design.Trial Registration: Retrospectively registered on 18/09/2017 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Registration number ACTRN12617001332314. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a major health issue associated with considerable health loss and societal costs. General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in the management of LBP; however, GP care has not been shown to be the most cost-effective approach unless exercise and behavioural counselling are added to usual care. The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP has been developed to assist GPs to manage LBP by empowering exploration and management of psychosocial barriers to recovery and provision of evidence-based care and information. The aim of the Low Back Pain in General Practice (LBPinGP) trial is to explore whether patients with LBP who receive care from GPs trained in the FREE approach have better outcomes than those who receive usual care.Methods/design: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing the FREE approach with usual care for LBP management with investigator-blinded assessment of outcomes. GPs will be recruited and then cluster randomised (in practice groups) to the intervention or control arm. Intervention arm GPs will receive training in the FREE approach, and control arm GPs will continue to practice as usual. Patients presenting to their GP with a primary complaint of LBP will be allocated on the basis of allocation of the GP they consult. We aim to recruit 60 GPs and 275 patients (assuming patients are recruited from 75% of GPs and an average of 5 patients per GP complete the study, accounting for 20% patient participant dropout). Patient participants and the trial statistician will be blind to group allocation throughout the study. Analyses will be undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome will be back-related functional impairment 6 months post-initial LBP consultation (interim data at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months), measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary patient outcomes include pain, satisfaction, quality of life, days off from work and costs of care. Secondary GP outcomes include beliefs about pain and impairment, GP confidence, and actual and reported clinical behaviour. Health economic and process evaluations will be conducted.Discussion: In the LBPinGP trial, we will investigate providing an intervention during the first interaction a person with back pain has with their GP. Because the FREE approach is used within a normal GP consultation, if effective, it may be a cost-effective means of improving LBP care.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000888460 . Registered on 6 July 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multimorbidity is a major issue for primary care. We aimed to explore primary care professionals' accounts of managing multimorbidity and its impact on clinical decision making and regional health care delivery. Methods: Qualitative interviews with 12 General Practitioners and 4 Primary Care Nurses in New Zealand's Otago region. Thematic analysis was conducted using the constant comparative method. Results: Primary care professionals encountered challenges in providing care to patients with multimorbidity with respect to both clinical decision making and health care delivery. Clinical decision making occurred in time-limited consultations where the challenges of complexity and inadequacy of single disease guidelines were managed through the use of "satisficing" (care deemed satisfactory and sufficient for a given patient) and sequential consultations utilising relational continuity of care. The New Zealand primary care co-payment funding model was seen as a barrier to the delivery of care as it discourages sequential consultations, a problem only partially addressed through the use of the additional capitation based funding stream of Care Plus. Fragmentation of care also occurred within general practice and across the primary/secondary care interface. Conclusions: These findings highlight specific New Zealand barriers to the delivery of primary care to patients living with multimorbidity. There is a need to develop, implement and nationally evaluate a revised version of Care Plus that takes account of these barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International and national bodies promote interdisciplinary care in the management of people with chronic conditions. We examine one facilitative factor in this team-based approach - the co-location of non-physician disciplines within the primary care practice. Methods: We used survey data from 330 General Practices in Ontario, Canada and New Zealand, as a part of a multinational study using The Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) surveys. Logistic and linear multivariable regression models were employed to examine the association between the number of disciplines working within the practice, and the capacity of the practice to offer specialized and preventive care for patients with chronic conditions. Results: We found that as the number of non-physicians increased, so did the availability of special sessions/clinics for patients with diabetes (odds ratio 1.43, 1.25-1.65), hypertension (1.20, 1.03-1.39), and the elderly (1.22, 1.05-1.42). Co-location was also associated with the provision of disease management programs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and asthma; the equipment available in the centre; and the extent of nursing services. Conclusions: The care of people with chronic disease is the 'challenge of the century'. Co-location of practitioners may improve access to services and equipment that aid chronic disease management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Alcohol affects Indigenous communities globally that have been colonised. These effects are physical, psychological, financial and cultural. This systematic review aims to describe the prevalence of current (12-month) alcohol dependence in Indigenous Peoples in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America, to identify how it is measured, and if tools have been validated in Indigenous communities. Such information can help inform estimates of likely treatment need. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was completed in six electronic databases for reports on current alcohol dependence (moderate to severe alcohol use disorder) published between 1 January 1989–9 July 2020. The following data were extracted: (1) the Indigenous population studied; country, (2) prevalence of dependence, (3) tools used to screen, assess or diagnose current dependence, (4) tools that have been validated in Indigenous populations to screen, assess or diagnose dependence, and (5) quality of the study, assessed using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: A total of 11 studies met eligibility criteria. Eight were cross-sectional surveys, one cohort study, and two were validation studies. Nine studies reported on the prevalence of current (12-month) alcohol dependence, and the range varied widely (3.8–33.3% [all participants], 3–32.8% [males only], 1.3–7.6% [females only]). Eight different tools were used and none were Indigenous-specific. Two tools have been validated in Indigenous (Native American) populations. Conclusion: Few studies report on prevalence of current alcohol dependence in community or household samples of Indigenous populations in these four countries. Prevalence varies according to sampling method and site (for example, specific community versus national). Prior work has generally not used tools validated in Indigenous contexts. Collaborations with local Indigenous people may help in the development of culturally appropriate ways of measuring alcohol dependence, incorporating local customs and values. Tools used need to be validated in Indigenous communities, or Indigenous-specific tools developed, validated and used. Prevalence findings can inform health promotion and treatment needs, including funding for primary health care and specialist treatment services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: First Nations peoples of Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America (USA) and Canada are more likely to be non-drinkers than other people in these countries. However, those who do drink may be at greater risk of alcohol-related harms (at a population level) due to the ongoing impacts from colonisation and associated oppression. Addressing unhealthy drinking (drinking above recommended limits including alcohol use disorders) in primary care settings is one important way to increase accessibility of treatment. Methods: This systematic review identifies peer-reviewed studies of alcohol treatments delivered in primary care or other non-residential settings for First Nations peoples of Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada. Literature searches were conducted in seven academic databases from their inception until March, 2020. We assessed evidence of treatment or implementation effectiveness, perceived acceptability or accessibility, and the study quality as assessed by the AXIS tool and by a measure of community participation in the research process. Results: Twenty-eight studies were included, published between 1968 and 2018. Studies reported on a range of alcohol treatments, from brief intervention to ambulatory withdrawal management, relapse prevention medicines, and cultural therapies. Brief intervention was the most studied approach. Cultural healing practices and bicultural approaches were a key theme amongst several studies. Four studies measured treatment effectiveness, including one randomised controlled trial (naltrexone vs naltrexone plus sertraline vs placebo) and two uncontrolled trials of disulfiram. Of the six implementation studies, three were (hybrid) effectiveness-implementation designs. Most of the remaining studies (n = 21) focused on treatment accessibility or acceptability. Community participation in the research process was poorly reported in most studies. Conclusions: Research evidence on how best to care for First Nations peoples with unhealthy alcohol use is limited. Trials of naltrexone and disulfiram presented promising results. Cultural and bicultural care were perceived as highly important to clinical staff and clients in several studies. More effectiveness studies on the full scope of alcohol treatments are needed. Greater community participation in research and more transparent reporting of this in study methods will be key to producing quality research that combines scientific rigour with cultural appropriateness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite significant investments to support primary care internationally, income-based inequities in access to quality health care are present in many high-income countries. This study aims to determine whether low- and middle-income groups are more likely to report poor quality of primary care (PC) than high-income groups cross-nationally. Methods: The 2011 Commonwealth Fund Telephone Survey of Sicker Adults is a cross-sectional study across eleven countries. Respondents were recruited from randomly selected households. We used data from surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We identified all questions relating to primary care performance, and categorized these into five dimensions: 1) access to care, 2) coordination 3) patient-centered care, and 4) technical quality of care. We used logistic regression with low and middle-income as the comparison groups and high-income as the referent. Results: Fourteen thousand two hundred sixty-two respondents provided income data. Countries varied considerably in their extent of income disparity. Overall, 24.7% were categorized as low- and 13.9% as high-income. The odds of reporting poor access to care were higher for low- and middle-income than high-income respondents in Canada, New Zealand and the US. Similar results were found for Sweden and Norway on coordination; the opposite trend favoring the low- and middle-income groups was found in New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States. The odds of reporting poor patient-centered care were higher for low-income than high-income respondents in the Netherlands, Norway, and the US; in Australia, this was true for low- and middle-income respondents. On technical quality of care, the odds of reporting poor care were higher for the low- and middle-income comparisons in Canada and Norway; in Germany, the odds were higher for low-income respondents only. The odds of reporting poor technical quality of care were higher for high-income than low-income respondents in the Netherlands. Conclusion: Inequities in quality PC for low and middle income groups exist on at least one dimension in all countries, including some that in theory provide universal access. More research is needed to fully understand equity in the PC sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Information communication technology (ICT) is a critical enabler of integrated models of community-based primary health care; however, little is known about how existing technologies have been used to support new models of integrated care. To address this gap, we draw on data from an international study of integrated models, exploring how ICT is used to support activities of integrated care and the organizational and environmental barriers and enablers to its adoption.Methods: We take an embedded comparative multiple-case study approach using data from a study of implementation of nine models of integrated community-based primary health care, the Implementing Integrated Care for Older Adults with Complex Health Needs (iCOACH) study. Six cases from Canada, three each in Ontario and Quebec, and three in New Zealand, were studied. As part of the case studies, interviews were conducted with managers and front-line health care providers from February 2015 to March 2017. A qualitative descriptive approach was used to code data from 137 interviews and generate word tables to guide analysis.Results: Despite different models and contexts, we found strikingly similar accounts of the types of activities supported through ICT systems in each of the cases. ICT systems were used most frequently to support activities like care coordination by inter-professional teams through information sharing. However, providers were limited in their ability to efficiently share patient data due to data access issues across organizational and professional boundaries and due to system functionality limitations, such as a lack of interoperability.Conclusions: Even in innovative models of care, managers and providers in our cases mainly use technology to enable traditional ways of working. Technology limitations prevent more innovative uses of technology that could support disruption necessary to improve care delivery. We argue the barriers to more innovative use of technology are linked to three factors: (1) information access barriers, (2) limited functionality of available technology, and (3) organizational and provider inertia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Disparities in access to primary care (PC) have been demonstrated within and between health systems. However, few studies have assessed the factors associated with multiple barriers to access occurring along the care-seeking process in different healthcare systems. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the 2016 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Adults, access was represented through participant responses to questions relating to access barriers either before or after reaching the PC practice in 11 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and United States). The number of respondents in each country ranged from 1000 to 7000 and the response rates ranged from 11% to 47%. We used multivariable logistic regression models within each of eleven countries to identify disparities in response to the access barriers by age, sex, immigrant status, income and the presence of chronic conditions. Results: Overall, one in five adults (21%) experienced multiple barriers before reaching PC practices. After reaching care, an average of 16% of adults had two or more barriers. There was a sixfold difference between nations in the experience of these barriers to access. Vulnerable groups experiencing multiple barriers were relatively consistent across countries. People with lower income were more likely to experience multiple barriers, particularly before reaching primary care practices. Respondents with mental health problems and those born outside the country displayed substantial vulnerability in terms of barriers after reaching care. Conclusion: A greater understanding of the multiple barriers to access to PC across the stages of the care-seeking process may help to inform planning and performance monitoring of disparities in access. Variation across countries may reveal organisational and system drivers of access, and inform efforts to improve access to PC for vulnerable groups. The cumulative nature of these barriers remains to be assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]