Search

Objectives: The 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. Methods: The 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. Results: Out 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. Conclusions: This 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. What is known about the topic? It has been challenging for oil and gas companies to deliver and evaluate value-based healthcare services to improve workers' wellbeing, supplementing essential emergency services and occupational health. What does this paper add? The Remote Health Value Framework (RHVF), developed and tested in this work, offers a blueprint for designing and evaluating models of care considering the companies' and workers' priorities. What are the implications for practitioners? The RHVF's application has the potential to improve industry standards, enabling a data-driven approach to healthcare investments that closely align with both corporate objectives and employee wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obesity is a known risk factor for the development of osteoarthritis and the subsequent need for joint replacement. Weight loss has been shown to reduce pain, disability, and the need for joint replacement, particularly in patients with knee osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to investigate pre‐operative weight change in patients with hip, knee, and shoulder osteoarthritis at a regional, public hospital in Australia, to identify opportunities for pre‐operative weight‐loss intervention. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent elective primary total hip (THR), knee (TKR), and shoulder (TSR) replacement for osteoarthritis was conducted between December 2019 and December 2022. BMI data were collected at three time points: (1) general practitioner (GP) referral; (2) orthopaedic clinic review; and (3) pre‐admission clinic (PAC) assessment. Results: A total of 496 patients were included in the study, of which 205 underwent THR, 251 underwent TKR, and 40 underwent TSR. The mean patient age was 67 years, and 46.4% were female. At the time of GP referral, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.4 kg/m2. Across the study period, only 2% of patients experienced clinically significant weight loss pre‐operatively (≥5% of total body weight). Conclusion: This study has demonstrated that very few patients lose weight prior to undergoing joint replacement in the public sector in Australia. This highlights the need for targeted non‐surgical weight loss interventions for patients currently awaiting joint replacement. [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]

Introduction: Many healthcare workers have switched from face-to-face clinical supervision to telesupervision since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the rise in prevalence of telesupervision and continuing remote working arrangements, telesupervision is no longer only limited to rural areas. As this remains an under-investigated area, this study aimed to explore supervisor and supervisee first hand experiences of effective telesupervision. Methods: A case study approach combining in-depth interviews of supervisors and supervisees, and document analysis of supervision documentation was used. De-identified interview data were analysed through a reflective thematic analysis approach. Results: Three supervisor-supervisee pairs from occupational therapy and physiotherapy provided data. Data analysis resulted in the development of four themes: Benefits vs limitations and risks, not often a solo endeavour, importance of face-to-face contact, and characteristics of effective telesupervision. Discussion: Findings of this study have confirmed that telesupervision is suited to supervisees and supervisors with specific characteristics, who can navigate the risks and limitations of this mode of clinical supervision. Healthcare organisations can ensure availability of evidence-informed training on effective telesupervision practices, as well as investigate the role of blended supervision models to mitigate some risks of telesupervision. Further studies could investigate the effectiveness of utilising additional professional support strategies that complement telesupervision, including in nursing and medicine, and ineffective telesupervision practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Modifications to rapid response team (RRT) activation criteria occur commonly in Australian hospitals without evidence to define their use. Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of RRT activation criteria modifications in preventing RRT activation and differences in adverse events associated with treatment delays caused by modifications. Methods: A prospective chart audit of hospital patients with RRT activation criteria modifications admitted during a 12‐month period in a large regional hospital in Toowoomba, Australia. The incidence of RRT activation criteria modifications, RRT activations and rates of adverse events following criteria modifications were investigated. Adverse events were defined as a delayed treatment on the ward, unplanned intensive care unit admission, cardiac arrest and unexpected death. Differences in patient outcomes among medical and surgical patients were also investigated. Results: A total of 271 patients out of 4009 admitted patients had modifications to their RRT activation criteria. There was no difference in rates of RRT activation in patients with modified criteria compared with patients with unmodified criteria (P = 0.37). In patients with RRT activation criteria modifications, rates of adverse events were higher in patients who met their modified RRT criteria (93.3%) compared with those who did not meet modified RRT criteria (3.8%; P < 0.001). Additionally, in patients with modifications, rates of adverse events were higher in medical patients (27.6%; n = 50) compared with surgical patients (15.6%; n = 14; P = 0.03). Conclusions: The results strongly suggest that RRT criteria modification is associated with no difference in rates of RRT activation and with detrimental impacts on patient safety, particularly in medical patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]