Search

Background and objective Tuberculosis infection (TBI) screening and treatment delivered from primary care could hold the key to achieving tuberculosis (TB) elimination in lowTB burden countries. This scoping review was undertaken to understand how elements of the cascade of care for TBI screening and treatment have been implemented in primary care settings globally. Methods For this review, eight databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and the Cochrane Library, to examine models of care for TBI screening and treatment in primary care. Results Eight articles were included from the 7207 articles screened. These eight articles describe models of care that are varied in their aim, design and focus and elements of the TBI cascade of care. Discussion Although primary care is well placed to offer TBI screening and treatment, robust referral, community mobilisation and systems support are critical. Further research is necessary for Australia to deliver on the elimination target of the World Health Organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: General practice training in outer metropolitan (OM) areas contributes to patients' access to care. Differences in clinical practice and training in rural versus urban areas have been established, but less is known about OM versus inner metropolitan (IM) differences – whether they offer a trainee learning experience of populations with distinct demographics and healthcare characteristics. This study sought to identify the characteristics and associations of general practice training in New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory OM areas, compared to IM and rural areas. Methods: Cross-sectional analyses of data (2016–2020) from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study, an ongoing cohort study of Australian GP registrars' in-consultation clinical and educational experience and behaviours, were performed. Multinomial logistic regression assessed associations of rural/OM/IM practice location with registrar and practice factors, patient factors, consultation content factors and consultation action factors. Results: Overall, 1308 registrars provided data from 177,026 consultations. For several variables, there was a pattern in the differences of associations across rural/OM/IM areas. Experience of care of older patients and Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander health were more likely in OM than IM areas. Care of patients from non-English speaking background was more likely in OM than in rural areas. Possible markers of healthcare access (specialist referrals, and pathology and imaging requests) were less likely in OM than in both IM and rural areas. Conclusions: OM areas are distinct (and educationally rich) clinical learning environments, with distinct demographic characteristics and seeming healthcare access limitations. This finding has implications for workforce support and health resource allocation. General practice in outer metropolitan regions is unique. In GP registrars' practice in these regions, fewer specialist, pathology and imaging referrals were generated, and care of older patients and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients was more likely than in inner metropolitan areas. Care of patients from non-English speaking backgrounds was more likely than in rural areas. A gradient (from inner metropolitan to outer metropolitan to rural regions) existed for many characteristics of registrars, practices, patients and clinical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Retention of general practice registrars in their training practices is important for addressing the GP workforce deficit and maldistribution of GPs. Given that rural and remote general practices are disproportionately affected by low retention, identifying the factors that promote retention may be as important as developing recruitment strategies in these areas. Quantifying the impact of relevant factors on registrar retention will enable a better understanding of how to incentivise retention and attenuate the loss of the rural workforce to other areas. We sought to establish the prevalence and associations of retention of general practice registrars in their training practices. Methods: This analysis was a component of the New alumni Experience of Training and independent Unsupervised Practice (NEXT-UP) study: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of early-career GPs in conjunction with evaluation of data contemporaneously recorded as part of vocational training. Participants were former registrars of three regional training organisations delivering general practice training in New South Wales, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and Eastern Victoria, who had attained Fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners or the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine between January 2016 and July 2018. The outcome measured was whether the registrar had previously worked at their current practice during vocational training. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between relevant explanatory variables and the outcome. Results: A total of 354 alumni responded (response rate 28%), of whom 322 provided data regarding previous training practice retention, with 190 (59%) having previously worked at their current practice as registrars. Among respondents who reported currently working in a regional--rural practice location (n=100), 69% reported having previously worked at their current practice during training. GPs were more likely to be retained by a practice they had trained at if it was of lower socioeconomic status (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.91), p<0.001 for each decile of socioeconomic status) and if the practice provided two or more of home visits, nursing home visits or afterhours services (aOR 4.29 (95%CI 2.10-8.75), p<0.001). They were less likely to be retained by the practice if training was completed in a regional-rural area (aOR 0.35 (95%CI 0.17-0.72), p=0.004). Conclusion: Regional--rural training location is associated with reduced odds of subsequent retention of general practice registrars. This is occurring despite significant government investment in expansion of general practice training in regional and rural areas. The practice factor most strongly associated with GP retention was the provision of out-of-practice and after-hours care. There may be altruistic, rather than monetary, reasons that explain this finding. Such training opportunities, if provided to all trainees, especially in regional and rural areas, would be a learning opportunity, a way of promoting holistic community-based care and an incentive for subsequent retention within the practice and community as an established GP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To establish prevalence and associations of provision of nursing home visits (NHV) and home visits (HV) by early‐career specialist GPs. Of particular interest were associations of rurality with performing NHVs and HVs. Methods: A cross‐sectional study. Design: A questionnaire‐based study. Setting: Australian general practice. Participants: Early‐career specialist GPs, practising in Australia, who attained Fellowship between January 2016 and July 2018, inclusive, having completed GP training in NSW, the ACT, Eastern Victoria or Tasmania. Main Outcome Measures: Current provision of NHV and HV. Results: NHV were provided by 34% of participants (59% in rural areas) and HV by 41% of participants (60% in rural areas). Remote, rural or regional practice location, as compared to major‐city practice, was strongly associated with performing NHV as an early‐career specialist GP; multivariable OR 5.87 (95% CI: 2.73, 12.6), p < 0.001, and with the provision of HV; multivariable OR 3.64 (95% CI: 1.63, 8.11), p = 0.002. Rurality of GP training (prior to attaining Fellowship) was significantly univariably associated with providing NHV and with providing HV as an early‐career specialist GP. On multivariable analyses, these were no longer statistically significant. Conclusion: Early‐career specialist GPs located in regional/remote areas are more likely than their urban colleagues to provide NHV and HV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Financial incentives and audit/feedback are widely used in primary care to influence clinician behaviour and increase quality of care. While observational data suggest a decline in quality when these interventions are stopped, their removal has not been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), to our knowledge. This trial aimed to determine whether chlamydia testing in general practice is sustained when financial incentives and/or audit/feedback are removed. Methods and findings We undertook a 2 x 2 factorial cluster RCT in 60 general practices in 4 Australian states targeting 49,525 patients aged 16-29 years for annual chlamydia testing. Clinics were recruited between July 2014 and September 2015 and were followed for up to 2 years or until 31 December 2016. Clinics were eligible if they were in the intervention group of a previous cluster RCT where general practitioners (GPs) received financial incentives (AU$5-AU$8) for each chlamydia test and quarterly audit/feedback reports of their chlamydia testing rates. Clinics were randomised into 1 of 4 groups: incentives removed but audit/feedback retained (group A), audit/feedback removed but incentives retained (group B), both removed (group C), or both retained (group D). The primary outcome was the annual chlamydia testing rate among 16- to 29-year-old patients, where the numerator was the number who had at least 1 chlamydia test within 12 months and the denominator was the number who had at least 1 consultation during the same 12 months. We undertook a factorial analysis in which we investigated the effects of removal versus retention of incentives (groups A + C versus groups B + D) and the effects of removal versus retention of audit/feedback (group B + C versus groups A + D) separately. Of 60 clinics, 59 were randomised and 55 (91.7%) provided data (group A: 15 clinics, 11,196 patients; group B: 14, 11,944; group C: 13, 11,566; group D: 13, 14,819). Annual testing decreased from 20.2% to 11.7% (difference -8.8%; 95% CI -10.5% to -7.0%) in clinics with incentives removed and decreased from 20.6% to 14.3% (difference -7.1%; 95% CI -9.6% to -4.7%) where incentives were retained. The adjusted absolute difference in treatment effect was -0.9% (95% CI -3.5% to 1.7%; p = 0.2267). Annual testing decreased from 21.0% to 11.6% (difference -9.5%; 95% CI -11.7% to -7.4%) in clinics where audit/feedback was removed and decreased from 19.9% to 14.5% (difference -6.4%; 95% CI -8.6% to -4.2%) where audit/feedback was retained. The adjusted absolute difference in treatment effect was -2.6% (95% CI -5.4% to -0.1%; p = 0.0336). Study limitations included an unexpected reduction in testing across all groups impacting statistical power, loss of 4 clinics after randomisation, and inclusion of rural clinics only. Conclusions Audit/feedback is more effective than financial incentives of AU$5-AU$8 per chlamydia test at sustaining GP chlamydia testing practices over time in Australian general practice. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000595617, Author(s): Jane S. Hocking 1,*, Anna Wood 1,2, Meredith Temple-Smith 2, Sabine Braat 1, Matthew Law 3, Liliana Bulfone 4, Callum Jones 1, Mieke van Driel 5, Christopher K. Fairley [...]