Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association
-
Limited literature exists on the practice of clinical supervision (CS) of professional physiotherapists despite current Australian safety and quality health standards stating that CS is to be provided to all physiotherapists. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CS of physiotherapists working in an Australian public health service. ⋯ Within this publicly funded physiotherapy department there was uncertainty about the effectiveness of CS, with more than half the physiotherapists rating their supervision as less than effective, suggesting there is opportunity for improvement in the practice of physiotherapy CS. Physiotherapists scored lowest in the normative domain, indicating that they found it difficult to find time for CS.
-
There is a paucity of research on the quality of evidence relating to primary care workforce models. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the quality of evidence on diabetes primary care workforce models in Australia. ⋯ More rigorous studies of diabetes workforce models are needed to determine whether these interventions improve patient outcomes and, if they do, represent value for money. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: Although health systems with strong primary care orientations have been associated with enhanced access, equity and population health, the primary care workforce is facing several challenges. These include a mal-distribution of resources (supply side) and health outcomes (demand side), inconsistent support for teamwork care models, and a lack of enhanced clinical inter-professional education and/or training opportunities. These challenges are exacerbated by an ageing health workforce and general population, as well as a population that has increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi-morbidity. Although several policy directions have been advocated to address these challenges, there is a lack of high-quality evidence about which primary care workforce models are best (and which models represent better value for money than current practice) and what the health effects are for patients. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD?: This study demonstrated several strengths and weaknesses of Australian diabetes models of care studies. In particular, only five of the 14 studies assessed were designed in a way that enabled them to achieve a Level II or I rating (and hence the 'best' level of evidence), based on the NHMRC's (2000, 2001) frameworks for assessing scientific evidence. The majority of studies risked the introduction of bias and thus may have incorrect conclusions. Only a few studies described clearly what the intervention and the comparator were and thus could be easily replicated. Only two studies included cost-effectiveness studies of their interventions compared with usual care. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS?: Although there has been an increase in the number of primary care workforce models implemented in Australia, there is a need for more rigorous research to assess whether these interventions are effective in producing improved health outcomes and represent better value for money than current practice. Researchers and policymakers need to make decisions based on high-quality evidence; it is not obvious what effect the evidence is having on primary care workforce reform.
-
In 2011, the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC) recommended that all hospitals in Australia must have an Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) program by 2013. Nevertheless, little is known about current AMS activities. This study aimed to determine the AMS activities currently undertaken, and to identify gaps, barriers to implementation and opportunities for improvement in Queensland hospitals. ⋯ Several areas for improvement were identified: reviewing antimicrobial prescribing with feedback to the prescriber, auditing, and training and education in antimicrobial use. There also appears to be a lack of resources to support AMS programs in some facilities. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: The ACSQHC has recommended that all hospitals implement an AMS program by 2013 as a requirement of Standard 3 (Preventing and Controlling Healthcare-Associated Infections) of the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards. The intent of AMS is to ensure appropriate prescribing of antimicrobials as part of the broader systems within a health service organisation to prevent and manage healthcare-associated infections, and improve patient safety and quality of care. This criterion also aligns closely with Standard 4: Medication Safety. Despite this recommendation, little is known about what AMS activities are undertaken in these facilities and what additional resources would be required in order to meet these national standards. WHAT DOES THE PAPER ADD?: This is the first survey that has been conducted of public hospital and health services in Queensland, a large decentralised state in Australia. This paper describes what AMS activities are currently being undertaken, identifies practice gaps, barriers to implementation and opportunities for improvement in Queensland hospitals. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS?: Several areas for improvement such as reviewing antimicrobial prescribing with feedback to the prescriber, auditing, and training and education in antimicrobial use have been identified. In addition, there appears to be a lack of resources to support AMS programs in some facilities.
-
To implement and evaluate strategies for improving access to emergency department (ED) care in a tertiary hospital. ⋯ Multiple reforms targeting processes both within the ED and its interface with inpatient units greatly improved access to ED care over 12 months and were associated with decreased in-hospital mortality. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THIS TOPIC?: Prolonged stays in the ED result in overcrowding, delayed ambulance access to ED care and increased adverse outcomes for admitted patients. The introduction in Australia of National Emergency Access Targets (NEAT), which stipulate at least 70% of patients in the ED must exit the department within 4h, have spurred hospitals into implementing a wide range of reforms with varying levels of success in achieving such targets. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD?: This study demonstrates how multiple reforms implemented in a poor performing tertiary hospital caused the proportion of patients exiting the ED within 4h to double within 9 months to reach levels comparable with best performing peer hospitals. This was associated with a 26% reduction in in-hospital mortality for admitted patients and no clinically significant adverse effects. It demonstrates the importance of robust governance structures, executive sponsorship, cross-disciplinary collaboration, regular feedback of NEAT performance data and major redesign of existing clinical processes, work practices and bed management operations. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICIANS AND MANAGERS?: Improving access to emergency care should be regarded as a problem located and resolved both within and without the ED. It requires a whole-of-hospital solution involving interdisciplinary collaboration and significant change in culture and practice relating to inpatient units and their interface with the ED.