Moving from Interest to Engagement-Understanding the Research Capacity Building Needs of Rehabilitation Doctors.

INTRODUCTION: Doctors working in rehabilitation settings have specialized clinical skills and experience, but research activity may be constrained by time pressures and inadequate current skills. This means missed opportunities to contribute to the evidence-base for better clinical practice and outcomes for people living with disabling, chronic complex conditions. This research aimed to understand rehabilitation doctors' research needs, experience, and aspirations to enable future training initiatives that are tailored to their practice context. METHODS: This exploratory sequential mixed-method study comprised a survey followed by focus groups. Rehabilitation doctors from three health services in south-east Queensland, Australia completed an online survey incorporating the Research Spider to explore their research experience, confidence, interest, opportunity, and intent. Focus groups explored the survey results and participants' views regarding strategies to build research capacity. RESULTS: The major findings were the gap between high research interest and low experience, confidence and opportunity; and fundamental research skills were identified as priority training topics. These findings support previous research. However, rehabilitation doctors may also have a self-expectation that, as competent clinicians, they should necessarily also be research-competent, and hold misperceptions regarding the shared nature of health services research. DISCUSSION: Protected time and funding may enhance engagement with research to generate specialty-relevant evidence for practice. To this end, a research capacity building initiative in the form of a series of self-directed learning packages has been developed and implemented. A tailored workshop to strengthen rehabilitation doctors' research skills and engagement has also been developed for implementation.

Clinical outcomes of an integrated primary-secondary model of care for individuals with complex type 2 diabetes: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to determine if a Beacon model of integrated care utilising general practitioners (GPs) with special interests could achieve similar clinical outcomes to a hospital-based specialist diabetes outpatient clinic. METHODS: This pragmatic non-inferiority multisite randomised controlled trial assigned individuals with complex type 2 diabetes to care delivered by a Beacon clinic or to usual care delivered by a hospital outpatient department, in a 3:1 ratio. Owing to the nature of the study, researchers were only blinded during the allocation process. Eligible participants were aged 18 or over, had been referred by their usual GP to the hospital central referral hub with type 2 diabetes and had been triaged to be seen within 30 or 90 days. The intervention consisted of diabetes management in primary care by GPs with a special interest who had been upskilled in complex diabetes under the supervision of an endocrinologist. The primary outcome was HbA1c at 12 months post-recruitment. The non-inferiority margin was 4.4 mmol/mol (0.4%). Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses are reported. RESULTS: Between 27 November 2012 and 14 July 2015, 352 individuals were recruited and 305 comprised the intention-to-treat sample (71 in usual care group and 234 in the Beacon model group). The Beacon model was non-inferior to usual care for both the per-protocol (difference -0.38 mmol/mol [95% CI -4.72, 3.96]; -0.03% [95% CI -0.43, 0.36]) and the intention-to-treat (difference -1.28 mmol/mol [95% CI -5.96, 3.40]; -0.12% [95% CI -0.55, 0.31]) analyses. Non-inferiority was sustained in a sensitivity analysis at 12 months. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in the secondary outcomes of BP, lipids or quality of life as measured by the 12 item short-form health survey (SF-12v2) and the diabetes-related quality of life (DQoL-Brief) survey. Safety indicators did not differ between groups. Participant satisfaction on the eight-item client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8) was good in both groups, but scores were significantly higher in the Beacon model group than the usual care group (mean [SD] 28.4 [4.9] vs 25.6 [4.9], respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In individuals with type 2 diabetes, a model of integrated care delivered in the community by GPs with a special interest can safely achieve clinical outcomes that are not inferior to those achieved with gold-standard hospital-based specialist outpatient clinics. Individuals receiving care in the community had greater satisfaction. Further studies will determine the cost of delivering this model of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000380897 FUNDING: The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1001157).

A qualitative follow-up study of diabetes patients' appraisal of an integrated diabetes service in primary care.

As the prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to escalate, health system reform is seeking better patient outcomes through new models of care that aim to provide the most appropriate care when needed. Patients' experiences of service innovations can shed light on the successes and challenges of implementing change. This paper explores patients' views of a new model of integrated care for patients with type 2 diabetes. A mixed-methods, randomised control trial evaluated a beacon clinic model of care for complex type 2 diabetes led by specialist general practitioners (GPs) in primary care settings in Brisbane, Australia. In this qualitative sub-study conducted between May 2014 and January 2015, 25 consenting participants were re-interviewed after 12 months using semi-structured questions, to explore their experiences of the new model of care. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically. In the first theme, Organised for patient-centred care, patients appraised the structural elements of the clinic. For most, it was an enabling experience which included convenience, flexibility and prompt communication back to the referring GPs. The preferences of a minority were partly realised, as they tried to understand the clinical purpose in comparison with traditional care. The second theme, Positioned as partners in care, revealed the pivotal role of patient-clinician relationships in patients' engagement with advice and self-care. Most found clinicians' collaborative approach engaging and motivating. A small minority with contextual concerns were disappointed with the focus on diabetes and struggled to engage fully with the model. Most participants valued this model of care, which reflects a capacity to manage the variable and complex needs of most patients referred for care. However, multi-level strategies are also needed to enhance patients' engagement with care and the sustainability of integrated diabetes care.

Making sense of change: patients' views of diabetes and GP-led integrated diabetes care.

BACKGROUND: Health system reform is directed towards better management of diabetes. However, change can be difficult, and patients' perspectives are a key aspect of implementing change. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated patients' perceptions and experiences of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), self-care and engagement with GP-led integrated diabetes care. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews were conducted with purposively selected patients with T2DM following their initial medical appointment in the new model of care. Normalization process theory was used to orientate the thematic analysis, to explain the work of implementing change. SETTING: Two specialist GP-based complex diabetes services in primary care in Brisbane, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Intervention group patients (n = 30) in a randomized controlled trial to evaluate a model of GP-led integrated care for complex T2DM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' experiences and perceptions of diabetes management and a GP-led model of care. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: sensibility of change, 'diabetic life' and diabetes care alliance. The imperative of change made sense, but some participants experienced dissonance between this rational view and their lived reality. Diabetes invaded life, revealing incongruities between participants' values and living with diabetes. They appreciated a flexible and personalized approach to care. DISCUSSION: Participants responded to advice in ways that seemed rational within the complexities of their life context. Their diabetes partnerships with health professionals coupled providers' biomedical expertise with patients' contextual expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Learning to manage relationships with various health professionals adds to patients' diabetes-related work. Providers need to adopt a flexible, interactive approach and foster trust, to enable better diabetes care.

Providing general practice needs-based care for carers of people with advanced cancer: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carers of patients with advanced cancer often have health and psychosocial needs, which are frequently overlooked. AIM: To meet the needs of carers through a GP consultation directed by a self-completed carer needs checklist. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial in general practice with recruitment through specialist oncology clinics, in Brisbane, Australia. METHOD: Intervention was (a) carer-GP consultations directed by a self-completed checklist of needs at baseline and 3 months; and (b) a GP-Toolkit to assist GPs to address carer-identified needs. Control group received usual care. Outcome measures were intensity of needs, anxiety and depression, and quality of life. RESULTS: Total recruitment 392. Overall, no significant differences were detected in the number or intensity of need between groups. Compared to controls, intervention participants with baseline clinical anxiety showed improvements in mental wellbeing (P = 0.027), and those with baseline clinical depression had slower development of anxiety (P = 0.044) at 6 months. For those not anxious, physical wellbeing improved at 1 month (P = 0.040). Carers looking after patients with poor functional status had more physical needs (P = 0.037) at 1 month and more psychological and emotional needs at 3 months (P = 0.034). Those caring for less unwell patients showed improved mental wellbeing at 3 months (P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: The intervention did not influence the number or intensity of needs reported by carers of people with advanced cancer. There was limited impact in people with pre-existing clinical anxiety and depression. For the carer of those most severely affected by advanced cancer, it drew attention to the needs arising from the caregiving role.

General Practitioners' perceptions of their role in cancer care and factors which influence this role.

Effective cancer care depends on inter-sectoral and inter-professional communication. General Practitioners (GPs) play a pivotal role in managing the health of most Australians, but their role in cancer care is unclear. This qualitative study explored GPs' views of this role and factors influencing their engagement with cancer care. Twelve metropolitan and non-metropolitan GPs in Queensland, Australia, were recruited between April and May 2008, and three focus groups and one interview were conducted using open-ended questions. The transcripts were analysed thematically. The first theme, GPs' perceptions of their role, comprised subthemes corresponding to four phases of the trajectory. The second theme, Enhancing GPs' involvement in ongoing cancer care, comprised subthemes regarding enhanced communication and clarification of roles and expectations. GPs' role in cancer care fluctuates between active advocacy during diagnosis and palliation, and ambivalent redundancy in between. The role is influenced by socioeconomic, clinical and geographical factors, patients' expectations and GPs' motivation. Not all participants wanted an enhanced role in cancer care, but all valued better specialist-GP communication. Role clarification is needed, together with greater mutual trust between GPs and specialists. Key needs included accessible competency training and mentoring for doctors unfamiliar with the system. Existing system barriers and workforce pressures in general practice must be addressed to improve the sharing of cancer care. Only one metropolitan focus group was conducted, so saturation of themes may not have been reached. The challenges of providing cancer care in busy metropolitan practices are multiplied in non-metropolitan settings with less accessible resources and where distance affects specialist communication. Non-metropolitan GPs learn from experience how to overcome referral and communication challenges. While the GPs identified solutions to their concerns, the role can be daunting. GPs are motivated to provide long-term care for their patients, but need to be acknowledged and supported by the health system.

Consultation etiquette in general practice: a qualitative study of what makes it different for lay cancer caregivers.

BACKGROUND: It is commonplace for lay caregivers to overlook their own health concerns when supporting someone with advanced cancer. During this time, caregivers' needs as patients are often marginalised by health professionals, including General Practitioners (GPs), who may miss the breadth of caregivers' needs by focusing on the practicalities of caregiving. GPs traditionally rely on patients to raise their concerns, and then respond to these concerns, but caregivers as patients may be disinclined to cue their GP. The norms of engagement when caregivers consult their GP are less defined, and how they interact with their GP regarding their own health is under-explored. This sub-study investigates the norms, assumptions and subtleties which govern caregiver-GP consultations, and explores factors affecting their interaction regarding caregivers' own health concerns. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with six lay caregivers and 19 health professionals in Brisbane, Australia, and analyzed the interview transcripts thematically. RESULTS: Traditional norms of engagement are subjected to assumptions and expectations which caregivers and GPs bring to the consultation. Practice pressures also influence both parties' capacity and willingness to discuss caregivers' health. Nonetheless, some GPs monitor caregivers' health opportunistically. Their interaction is enhanced by the quality of the caregiver-GP relationship and by the GP's skills. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers are caught in a paradox whereby their health needs may become subsumed by the care recipient's needs in a setting where patient needs are normally scrutinised and supported. Caregivers may not raise their health concerns with their GP, who instead may need to cue them that it is timely and safe to do so. The routine use of a prompt may help to address caregivers' needs systematically, but it needs to be complemented by GPs' desire and capacity to engage with patients in a caregiving role. The potential difference GPs can make to the health of these patients is substantial.

The impact of perceived stage of cancer on carers' anxiety and depression during the patients' final year of life.

OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the effects of perceived stage of cancer (PSOC) on carers' anxiety and depression during the patients' final year. METHODS: A consecutive sample of patients and carers (N=98) were surveyed at regular intervals regarding PSOC, and anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Means were compared by gender using the Mann-Whitney U-test. The chi-square was used to analyse categorical data. Agreement between carers' and patients' PSOC was estimated using kappa statistics. Correlations between carers' PSOC and their anxiety and depression were calculated using the Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: Over time, an increasing proportion of carers reported that the cancer was advanced, culminating at 43% near death. Agreement regarding PSOC was fair (kappa=0.29-0.34) until near death (kappa=0.21). Carers' anxiety increased over the year; depression increased in the final 6 months. Females were more anxious (p=0.049, 6 months; p=0.009, 3 months) than males, and more depressed until 1 month to death. The proportion of carers reporting moderate-severe anxiety almost doubled over the year to 27%, with more females in this category at 6 months (p=0.05). Carers with moderate-severe depression increased from 6 to 15% over the year. Increased PSOC was weakly correlated with increased anxiety and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Carers' anxiety exceeded depression in severity during advanced cancer. Females generally experienced greater anxiety and depression. Carers were more realistic than patients regarding the ultimate outcome, which was reflected in their declining mental health, particularly near the end.