Search

Allied health assistants (AHAs) are important members of the health workforce and key to meeting population health needs. Previous studies exploring the role and utility of AHAs from multiple stakeholder perspectives suggest AHAs remain poorly utilised in many healthcare settings. This qualitative study explores the experiences and perspectives of AHAs working in healthcare settings to determine the contextual factors influencing their role, and mechanisms to maximise their utility. We conducted semi-structured interviews using purposive sampling with 21 AHAs, from one regional and three metropolitan health services in Australia, between February and July 2021. We used a team-based framework approach to analyse the data. Four major themes were identified: 1) AHAs' interpersonal relationships, 2), clarity and recognition of AHA roles and role boundaries, 3) AHAs accessing education and professional development, and 4) the professional identity of the AHA workforce. Underpinning each of these themes were relationships between AHAs and other healthcare professionals, their patients, health services, and the wider AHA workforce. This study may inform initiatives to optimise the utility of AHAs and increase their role in, and impact on, patient care. Such initiatives include the development and implementation of guidelines and competencies to enhance the clarity of AHAs' scope of practice, the establishment of standardised educational pathways for AHAs, and increased engagement with the AHA workforce to make decisions about their scope of practice. These initiatives may precede strategies to advance the AHA career structure.

Background Long waiting times are associated with public community outpatient health services. This trial aimed to determine if a new model of care based on evidence-based strategies that improved patient flow in two small pilot trials could be used to reduce waiting time across a variety of services. The key principle of the Specific Timely Appointments for Triage (STAT) model is that patients are booked directly into protected assessment appointments and triage is combined with initial management as an alternative to a waiting list and triage system. Methods A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted between October 2015 and March 2017, involving 3116 patients at eight sites across a major Australian metropolitan health network. Results The intervention reduced waiting time to first appointment by 33.8% (IRR = 0.663, 95% CI 0.516 to 0.852, P = 0.001). Median waiting time decreased from a median of 42 days (IQR 19 to 86) in the control period to a median of 24 days (IQR 13 to 48) in the intervention period. A substantial reduction in variability was also noted. The model did not impact on most secondary outcomes, including time to second appointment, likelihood of discharge by 12 weeks and number of appointments provided, but was associated with a small increase in the rate of missed appointments. Conclusions Broad-scale implementation of a model of access and triage that combined triage with initial management and actively managed the relationship between supply and demand achieved substantial reductions in waiting time without adversely impacting on other aspects of care. The reductions in waiting time are likely to have been driven, primarily, by substantial reductions for those patients previously considered low priority. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615001016527 registration date: 29/09/2015.

Background: Waiting lists are often thought to be inevitable in healthcare, but strategies that address patient flow by reducing complexity, combining triage with initial management, and/or actively managing the relationship between supply and demand can work. One such model, Specific Timely Appointments for Triage (STAT), brings these elements together and has been found in multiple trials to reduce waiting times by 30–40%. The next challenge is to translate this knowledge into practice.Method: A multi-faceted knowledge translation strategy, including workshops, resources, dissemination of research findings and a community of practice (CoP) was implemented. A mixed methods evaluation of the strategy was conducted based on the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework, drawing on an internal database and a survey of workshop and CoP participants.Results: Demonstrating reach, at July 2020 an internal database held details of 342 clinicians and managers from 64 health services who had participated in the workshop program (n = 308) and/or elected to join an online CoP (n = 227). 40 of 69 (58%) respondents to a survey of this population reported they had adopted the model, with some providing data demonstrating that the STAT model had been efficacious in reducing waiting time. Perceived barriers to implementation included an overwhelming existing waiting list, an imbalance between supply and demand and lack of resources.Conclusion: There is high quality evidence from trials that STAT reduces waiting time. Using the RE-AIM framework, this evaluation of a translation strategy demonstrates uptake of evidence to reduce waiting time in health services.

IntroductionGuidelines for hip fracture care state that patients with hip fracture should be mobilised on the day after surgery and at least once a day thereafter. However, compliance with these guidelines is poor. One approach that would assist physiotherapists to meet mobility guidelines after hip fracture is to delegate the provision of daily mobilisation to allied health assistants under their supervision. Therefore, we plan to conduct a randomised controlled trial to determine the feasibility of an allied health assistant providing daily inpatient rehabilitation to patients with hip fracture.Methods and analysisUsing a parallel group randomised controlled design with one-to-one allocation, participants will be randomly allocated to an experimental group (allied health assistant management) or a comparison group (physiotherapist management). Inclusion criteria are: adult with diagnosis of hip fracture; inpatient in acute hospital; walked independently pre-hip fracture and able to communicate in conversational English. The experimental group will receive routine physiotherapy rehabilitation, including daily mobilisation, from an allied health assistant following initial physiotherapist assessment. The comparison group will receive routine rehabilitation from a physiotherapist. The primary outcome will be the feasibility of allied health assistant management of patients with hip fracture. Feasibility will be determined using the following areas of focus in Bowen’s feasibility framework: acceptability (patient satisfaction), demand (proportion of patients who participate), implementation (time allied health assistant/physiotherapist spends with participant, occasions of service) and practicality (cost, adverse events). Staff involved in the implementation of allied health assistant care will be interviewed to explore their perspectives on feasibility. Secondary outcomes include compliance with daily mobilisation guidelines, discharge destination, hospital readmission, falls, functional activity and length of stay. We aim to recruit 50 participants. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe feasibility and mobilisation rates will be calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression to compare compliance with mobilisation guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the Peninsula Health human research ethics committee (HREC/63 005/PH-2020). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trail registration numberAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry; ACTRN12620000877987; Pre-results.