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: The creation of age‐friendly home environments enables middle‐aged and older aged people to live independently at home while adapting to age‐related changes. Little is currently known about existing home hazards that may potentially hinder healthy older people as they age. Methods: Prospective cohort study of healthy adults who received an age‐friendly home environment assessment conducted by an occupational therapist. Adults aged 60 and over, without significant disability, living in homes within metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia were recruited through community advertising. Results: Sixty age‐friendly home environment assessments were conducted. Common areas where potential hazards were identified, and modifications recommended were bathrooms, toilets and backyards. Gardens were commonly identified as potentially requiring modifications in the future. Participants were more likely to consider moving to new housing if additional modifications were needed to their homes. Conclusion: Affordable and accessible age‐friendly housing is required to support an ageing population. Education on age‐friendly housing for healthy middle and older aged people is required enabling proactive planning rather than awaiting health crises. [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]

Clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations for the management of challenging behaviours after traumatic brain injury (TBI) in hospital and inpatient rehabilitation settings are sparse. This systematic review aims to identify and appraise CPGs, and report high-quality recommendations for challenging behaviours after TBI in hospital and rehabilitation settings. A three-step search strategy was conducted to identify CPGs that met inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently scored the AGREE II domains. Guideline quality was assessed based on CPGs adequately addressing four out of the six AGREE II domains. Data extraction was performed with a compilation of high-quality CPG recommendations. Seven CPGs out of 408 identified records met the inclusion criteria. Two CPGs were deemed high-quality. High-quality CPG recommendations with the strongest supporting evidence include behaviour management plans; beta-blockers for the treatment of aggression; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for moderate agitation; adamantanes for impaired arousal/attention in agitation; specialised, multi-disciplinary TBI behaviour management services. This systematic review identified and appraised the quality of CPGs relating to the management of challenging behaviours after TBI in acute hospital and rehabilitation settings. Further research to rigorously evaluate TBI behaviour management programs, investigation of evidence-practice gaps, and implementation strategies for adopting CPG recommendations into practice is needed. Two clinical practice guidelines appraised as high-quality outline recommendations for the management of challenging behaviours after traumatic brain injury in hospital and inpatient rehabilitation settings. High-quality guideline recommendations with the strongest supporting evidence for non-pharmacological treatment include behaviour management plans considering precipitating factors, antecedents, and reinforcing events. High-quality guideline recommendations with the strongest supporting evidence for pharmacological management include beta blockers for aggression in traumatic brain injury. Few guidelines provide comprehensive detail on the implementation of recommendations into clinical care which may limit adoption [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]