Search

Background: Health‐care expenditure is rapidly increasing in Australia with increasing pressure on health‐care services to review processes, improve efficiency and ensure equity in service delivery. The nursing profession have improved efficiency and patient care by investigating time‐use to describe current practice and support development of workforce planning models. There is, however, a lack of information to understand factors that impact on occupational therapists time‐use in the clinical setting impacting the development of workforce planning models which adapt occupational therapy service delivery to match resources with demand. The objective of this review was to systematically identify known factors which impact on occupational therapists time‐use in the clinical setting. Method: A systematic review of Medline, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases and grey literature was completed in September 2016. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion and quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black scale. Variables impacting on occupational therapists time‐use were categorised and thematically analysed to synthesise key themes. Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Three key categories of factors influencing time‐use were identified. These were: patient‐related factors (e.g. level of function, therapy required, type, complexity of injury), therapist‐related factors (e.g. experience, clinical vs non‐clinical responsibility), and organisational‐related factors (e.g. workplace characteristics, availability of staff, presence of students). Conclusion: Occupational therapist time‐use in clinical settings is complex and difficult to quantify in research. How occupational therapists spend their time is impacted by a number of patient, clinician and service related factors reflecting the breadth of occupational therapy practice and client‐centred nature of the profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined if there was any relationship between MRFF funding and disease burden, and if fatal or non-fatal burden better explains MRFF allocation to disease groups. However, the current trend of MRFF distribution suggests targeted, disease-based funding provided through the MRFF tends to go to disease groups with a high death burden and does not target disability burden. Keywords: Resource allocation; Health financing EN Resource allocation Health financing 111 111 1 03/12/21 20210215 NES 210215 The disability burden of non-fatal disease is not reflected in allocation of grants The Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) has become an increasingly important part of health and medical research funding in Australia. [Extracted from the article]