Search

Introduction: Rural and remote communities face significant disadvantages accessing health services and have a high risk of poor health outcomes. Workforce challenges in these areas are multifaceted, with allied health professionals requiring broad skills and knowledge to provide vital services to local communities. To develop the expertise for rural and remote practice, the allied health rural generalist pathway (AHRGP) was introduced to develop and recognise specialist skills and knowledge required for rural and remote practice, however the experiences of professionals has not been explored. This study gained the experiences and perceptions of allied health professionals undertaking the pathway as well as their clinical supervisors, line managers, profession leads and consumer representatives. Methods: A qualitative study was undertaken drawing on pragmatic approaches across four research phases. This study was one component of a larger mixed methods study investigating the experience, impact and outcomes of the AHRGP across six regional Local Health Networks in South Australia (SA). Interviews, surveys and focus groups were conducted to explore the perceptions and experiences of participants. Data was analysed thematically across participant groups and research phases. Results: A total of 54 participants including 15 trainees, 13 line managers, nine clinical supervisors, six profession leads, four program managers and seven consumer representatives informed this study. Five themes were generated from the data; gaining broad skills and knowledge for rural practice, finding the time to manage the pathway, implementing learning into practice, the AHRGP impacts the whole team and confident, consistent, skilled allied health professionals positively impact consumers. Conclusion: The AHRGP is offering allied health professionals the opportunity to develop skills and knowledge for rural and remote practice. It is also having positive impacts on individuals' ability to manage complexity and solve problems. Findings indicated consumers and organisations benefited through the provision of more accessible, consistent, and high quality services provided by trainees. Trainees faced challenges finding the time to manage study and to implement learning into practice. Organisations would benefit from clearer support structures and resourcing to support the pathway into the future. Incentives and career advancement opportunities for graduates would strengthen the overall value of the AHRPG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rural and remote health workforces face longstanding challenges in Australia. Little is known about the economic effectiveness of workforce initiatives to increase recruitment and retention. A two-level allied health rural generalist pathway was introduced as a workforce strategy in regional local health networks (LHNs) in South Australia in 2019. This research measured the resources and outcomes of the pathway following its introduction. Methods: A multi-phase, mixed-methods study was conducted with a 3-year follow-up period (2019–2022). A cost–consequence analysis was conducted as part of this study. Resources measured included tuition, time for quarantined study, supervision and support, and program manager salary. Outcomes measured included length of tenure, turnover data, career progression, service development time, confidence and competence. Results: Fifteen allied health professional trainees participated in the pathway between 2019 and 2022 and seven completed during this time. Trainees participated for between 3 and 42 months. The average total cost of supporting a level 1 trainee was $34,875 and level 2 was $70,469. The total return on investment within the evaluation period was $317,610 for the level 1 program and $58,680 for the level 2 program. All seven completing trainees continued to work in regional LHNs at the 6-month follow-up phase and confidence and competence to work as a rural generalist increased. Conclusion: This research found that the allied health rural generalist pathway has the potential to generate multiple positive outcomes for a relatively small investment and is therefore likely to be a cost-effective workforce initiative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: It is widely understood that a key means of improving health systems and patient outcomes is through research – accessing, understanding, generating and applying research evidence-based practice. To promote more targeted and strategic research in Allied Health practice, this study sought to establish the principles, areas and priorities for clinical research as perceived by Allied Health leaders in the South Australian public health system. Methods: The study used a mixed-methods design (full, sequential and equal model). Participants were recruited from the South Australian Department of Health and Wellbeing employment lists for Allied Health senior leaders. Consenting participants attended face-to-face focus groups; after an overview presentation, they discussed the principles for Allied Health research, followed by areas and priorities for research. Summaries of the responses were themed descriptively and circulated electronically so participants could confirm the research areas and ascribe priority ratings, clinical populations and services. Results: A total of 28 people attended the stakeholder forum (5 online); 20 responded to the second-round electronic summary. Nine principles of research action were agreed. Fourteen research areas were identified and prioritised. There was a relatively consistent prioritisation of measuring Allied Health value, Allied Health workforce, hospital avoidance and closing the gap for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples health outcomes – whether the individuals were thinking about their own service or the state as a whole. Conclusions: Allied Health leadership identified key principles and priorities for research to improve service delivery and patient outcomes. These priorities should generate further discussion and interest for novice and experienced researchers and leaders and can be used to inform granting and project plans. What is known about the topic? Allied Health are well equipped to engage in research but have limited capacity. What does this paper add? We have identified key priorities and principles to inform Allied Health research activity. What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners, funders and other stakeholders can develop these identified principles and priorities to direct research time and resources for the most impact on health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]