Do general practice management and/or team care arrangements reduce avoidable hospitalisations in Central and Eastern Sydney, Australia?

BACKGROUND: The number of people living with chronic health conditions is increasing in Australia. The Chronic Disease Management program was introduced to Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) to provide a more structured approach to managing patients with chronic conditions and complex care needs. The program supports General Practitioners (GP)s claiming for up to one general practice management plan (GPMP) and one team care arrangement (TCA) every year and the patient claiming for up to five private allied health visits. We describe the profile of participants who claimed for GPMPs and/or TCAs in Central and Eastern Sydney (CES) and explore if GPMPs and/or TCAs are associated with fewer emergency hospitalisations (EH)s or potentially preventable hospitalisations (PPH)s over the following 5 years. METHODS: This research used the CES Primary and Community Health Cohort/Linkage Resource (CES-P&CH) based on the 45 and Up Study to identify a community-dwelling population in the CES region. There were 30,645 participants recruited within the CES area at baseline. The CES-P&CH includes 45 and Up Study questionnaire data linked to MBS data for the period 2006-2014. It also includes data from the Admitted Patient Data Collection, Emergency Department Data Collection and Deaths Registry linked by the NSW Centre for Health Record Linkage. RESULTS: Within a two-year health service utilisation baseline period 22% (5771) of CES participants had at least one claim for a GPMP and/or TCA. Having at least one claim for a GPMP and/or TCA was closely related to the socio-demographic and health needs of participants with higher EHs and PPHs in the 5 years that followed. However, after controlling for confounding factors such as socio-demographic need, health risk, health status and health care utilization no significant difference was found between having claimed for a GPMP and/or TCA during the two-year health service utilisation baseline period and EHs or PPHs in the subsequent 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GPMPs and/or TCAs in the CES area appears well-targeted towards those with chronic and complex care needs. There was no evidence to suggest that the use of GPMPs and /or TCAs has prevented hospitalisations in the CES region.

An explorative qualitative study on acceptability of physical activity assessment instruments among primary care professionals in southern Sydney.

BACKGROUND: There are a substantial number of instruments for primary-care clinicians to assess physical-activity (PA). However, there are few studies that have explored the views of clinicians regarding comparative acceptability and ease of use. A better understanding of how clinicians perceive instruments could help overcome barriers, and inform future interventions. This study explored the acceptability of five PA-assessment instruments amongst a sample of Australian primary-care clinicians, including family-physicians (FP) and practice-nurses (PN). METHODS: A purposive sample of FPs (N = 9) and PNs (N = 10) from eight family-practices in southern Sydney consented to participate. Stage-1 involved semi-structured interviews with participants to select preferred instruments. An analysis of the two preferred instruments was conducted as Stage-2, to identify differences in instrument purpose and content. Stage-3 involved participants using the two instruments, selected from Stage-1, for 12-weeks. At the end of this period, semi-structured interviews were repeated to explore clinician experience. RESULTS: Clinicians indicated preferences for the GP-Physical-Activity-Questionnaire and 3-Questionnaire Physical-Activity-Questionnaire. These instruments demonstrated distinct variations in content, theoretical orientation, and outcome measures. Reasons for preference included; variations in individual clinician PA levels, knowledge in PA-assessment and instrument features. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrated two instruments as preferred. Reasons for preference related to internal characteristics of clinicians such as variations in the level of individual PA and external circumstances, such as instrument features.

Resourcing an evolution of roles in general-practice: a study to determine the validity and reliability of tools to assist nurses and patients to assess physical activity.

Traditionally, GPs have been responsible for physical activity (PA) assessment within the general practice setting. Multiple questionnaires are available to support uptake of PA assessment but less than 30% of patients are assessed. A range of barriers hamper uptake. Evidence indicates that practice nurses (PNs) and patients are resourceful members of the general practice team but have been underutilised. This study assessed the validity and reliability of two instruments for assessing PA, administered by PNs and patients. The study aimed to identify robust tool(s) to support the evolving role of PNs and patients in prevention and management strategies in general practice. A purposive sample of PNs and patients from general practices in Sydney was invited to participate. The results of the PN- or patient-administered general practice physical activity questionnaire (GPPAQ) and the three-question physical activity questionnaire (3Q) were compared against accelerometer activity. The study examined agreement in classification of PA levels according to Australian PA recommendations. Validity showed low-moderate correlations between accelerometer and GPPAQ (rho=0.26), 3Q (rho=0.45). Seven-day test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were 0.82-0.95 for GGPAQ and 0.94-0.98 for 3Q. Agreement with PA recommendations was moderate for GPPAQ (kappa 0.73, 95% CI, 0.56-0.85) and fair for 3Q (kappa 0.62, 95% CI, 0.47-0.78). Although 3Q demonstrated higher correlation with accelerometry, GPPAQ demonstrated higher agreement with PA guidelines. Given GPPAQ showed reasonable rigour, it may prove useful for PN and patient use.