Search

Objective Setting Participants Design Results Conclusions Globally, most doctors train and work in metropolitan areas but a key strategy for developing the rural health workforce is expanding rural training. The aim of this study was to describe the scope and quality of learning along with skill acquisition of GP trainees based in regional, rural, and remote settings.Regional, rural and remote settings in Queensland Australia excluding Brisbane.Thirty‐seven general practice trainees who had undertaken their first community placement were recruited from regional, rural and remote learning settings within Queensland.Qualitative descriptive methodology based on constructionist epistemology was employed which allowed for the exploration of current GP trainees' experiences. Trainees were interviewed and data were thematically analysed as to the scope and quality of learning by the setting of training. Learning experiences were then mapped against the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model to explore skill acquisition.In terms of the scope and quality of learning, rural and remote trainees mainly focused on the diverse and unique (sometimes challenging) experiences their setting offered compared with regionally based trainees. Mapping of the trainee comments to the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition demonstrated that regardless of setting, equivalent learning occurred by GP trainees.This exploratory study provides evidence that rural and remote learning may provide a more diverse and challenging experience. It suggests an equivalence of quality of education and skill acquisition across settings rural, regional and remote. This suggests that the training distribution policies may not disadvantage GP trainees and the scope and quality of more remote learning may increase uptake of remote placements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on clinical supervision practices of health care workers in health care settings in one Australian state. Method: A bespoke survey was developed and administered online using Qualtrics™. The survey consisted of Likert scale and closed questions, with options for free text comments. Numerical data were analysed descriptively and using Chi‐Square tests. Textual data were analysed through content analysis. Results: Of the 178 survey respondents, 42% were from allied health disciplines, 39% from nursing and midwifery, and 19% from medicine. The type and mode (i.e., face‐to‐face, telesupervision) of clinical supervision prior to the pandemic and at the time of survey completion (i.e., July–August 2021) were similar. Eighteen percent of respondents had a change in supervision arrangements but only 5% had a change in supervisor. For the 37% who changed roles due to COVID‐19, 81% felt their current supervisor was still able to support them, 69% were still having their supervisory needs met. Analyses of textual data resulted in the development of two categories: Supervision deteriorating, and some clinical supervision functions (i.e., formative and restorative) being more impacted than others (i.e., normative). Conclusion: There were substantial disruptions to several parameters of clinical supervision due to COVID‐19, that may pose a threat to high quality supervision. Health care workers reported pandemic‐induced stress and mental health challenges that were not always addressed by effective restorative supervision practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical training is a long process that is not complete until doctors finish specialty training. Getting into specialty training is challenging because of strong competition for limited places, depending on doctors' chosen field. This may have a negative impact on doctor well-being and reduce the efficiency of the medical training system. This study explored the barriers of pre-registrar (junior) doctors getting into specialty training programs to inform tailored support and re-design of speciality entry systems. Methods: From March to October 2019, we conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with early-career doctors in Australia, who had chosen their specialty field, and were either seeking entry, currently undertaking or had recently completed various fields of specialty training. We sought reflections about barriers and major influences to getting into specialty training. In comparing and contrasting generated themes, different patterns emerged from doctors targeting traditionally non-competitive specialty fields like General Practice (GP) and other specialties (typically more competitive fields). As a result we explored the data in this dichotomy. Results: Doctors targeting entry to GP specialties had relatively seamless training entry and few specific barriers. In contrast, those pursuing other specialties, regardless of which ones, relayed multiple barriers of: Navigating an unpredictable and complex system with informal support/guidance; Connecting to the right people/networks for relevant experience; Pro-actively planning and differentiating skills with recurrent failure of applications. Conclusions: Our exploratory study suggests that doctors wanting to get into non-GP specialty training may experience strong barriers, potentially over multiple years, with the capacity to threaten their morale and resilience. These could be addressed by a clearinghouse of information about different speciality programs, broader selection criteria, feedback on applications and more formal guidance and professional supports. The absence of challenges identified for doctors seeking entry to GP could be used to promote increased uptake of GP careers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on achieving growth and sustainability of rural health research using consensus-based framework. Topics include research conducted with the goal of using a co-design process including the opinions of health researchers in rural communities, the priority given to building of rural health research capacity to respond to the needs of communities, and the role of the framework as a foundation in developing tools in planning rural health research equity.

Background: The field of rural health research is critical for informing health improvement in rural places but it involves researching in small teams and distributed sites that may have specific sustainability challenges. We aimed to evaluate this to inform how to sustain the field of rural health research.Methods: We conducted In-depth semi-structured interviews of 50-70 minutes with 17 rural early career researchers who were from different research sites across rural Australia. Data were thematically coded.Results: Seven sustainability challenges were noted, namely recognition, workload, networks, funding and strategic grants, organisational culture, job security, and career progression options. Rural researchers were poorly recognised for their work and researchers were not extended the same opportunities enjoyed by staff at main campuses. Unpredictable and high workloads stemmed from community demand and limited staff. Strategic grant opportunities failed to target the generalist, complex research in this field and the limited time researchers had for grant writing due to their demands within small academic teams. Limited collaboration with other sites increased dissatisfaction. In the face of strong commitment to rural 'places' and their enthusiasm for improving rural health, fixed-term contracts and limited career progression options were problematic for researchers and their families in continuing in these roles.Conclusion: A comprehensive set of strategies is needed to address the sustainability of this field, recognising its value for rural self-determination and health equity. Hubs and networks could enable more cohesively planned, collaborative research, skills sharing, senior academic supervision and career development. Targeted funding, fit to the context and purpose of this field, is urgent. Inaction may fuel regular turnover, starting after a researcher's first years, losing rich academic theoretical and contextual knowledge that is essential to address the health of rural populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to develop the Remote Health Value Framework to evaluate the models of healthcare provision for workers in the oil and gas sector, predominantly situated in rural and remote areas.MethodsThe framework was co-designed with the leadership team in one global oil and gas company using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach with a conjoint analysis component. This was used to elicit and understand preferences and trade-offs among different value domains that were important to the stakeholders with respect to the provision of healthcare for its workers. Preference elicitation and interviews were conducted with a mix of health, safety, and environment (HSE) team and non-HSE managers and leaders.ResultsOut of five presented value domains, participants considered the attribute 'Improving health outcomes of employees' the most important aspect for the model of healthcare which accounted for 37.3% of the total utility score. Alternatively, the 'Program cost' attribute was least important to the participants, accounting for only 11.0% of the total utility score. The marginal willingness-to-pay analysis found that participants would be willing to pay A$9090 per utile for an improvement in a particular value attribute.ConclusionsThis is the first value framework for healthcare delivery in the oil and gas industry, contextualised by its delivery within rural and remote locations. It provides a systematic and transparent method for creating value-based healthcare models. This approach facilitates the evaluation of healthcare investments, ensuring they align with value domains prioritised by the HSE and leadership teams.