What Complexity Science Predicts About the Potential of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning to Improve Primary Care.

Primary care physicians are likely both excited and apprehensive at the prospects for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). Complexity science may provide insight into which AI/ML applications will most likely affect primary care in the future. AI/ML has successfully diagnosed some diseases from digital images, helped with administrative tasks such as writing notes in the electronic record by converting voice to text, and organized information from multiple sources within a health care system. AI/ML has less successfully recommended treatments for patients with complicated single diseases such as cancer; or improved diagnosing, patient shared decision making, and treating patients with multiple comorbidities and social determinant challenges. AI/ML has magnified disparities in health equity, and almost nothing is known of the effect of AI/ML on primary care physician-patient relationships. An intervention in Victoria, Australia showed promise where an AI/ML tool was used only as an adjunct to complex medical decision making. Putting these findings in a complex adaptive system framework, AI/ML tools will likely work when its tasks are limited in scope, have clean data that are mostly linear and deterministic, and fit well into existing workflows. AI/ML has rarely improved comprehensive care, especially in primary care settings, where data have a significant number of errors and inconsistencies. Primary care should be intimately involved in AI/ML development, and its tools carefully tested before implementation; and unlike electronic health records, not just assumed that AI/ML tools will improve primary care work life, quality, safety, and person-centered clinical decision making.

Clinical nurse specialist prescribing in a cancer centre supportive and palliative care team.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the prescribing practices of three independent nurse prescribers (INPs)/clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) working in a supportive and palliative care team (SPCT) in a district general hospital and a specialist tertiary cancer centre in the UK. METHODS: A prospective review of all consultations and the prescribing activity arising from the consultations (and reasons for non-prescribing following a consultation) of 3 INPs/CNSs between 1 August 2018 and 31 October 2018. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-three consultations were undertaken on 186 individual patients. Two hundred forty-seven consultations representing 50% resulted in changes to a prescription, and 123 of those consultations representing 50% of prescriptions written resulted in the prescribing of an opioid for moderate-to-severe pain. CONCLUSIONS: This service evaluation demonstrates the potential for INPs in SPCTs to provide comprehensive symptom control while enabling CNSs to practice with a greater degree of autonomy leading to enhanced job satisfaction. On the basis of our experience, we would encourage all palliative care CNSs to undergo training to become INPs (if available).

Following the funding trail: financing, nurses and teamwork in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: Across the globe the emphasis on roles and responsibilities of primary care teams is under scrutiny. This paper begins with a review of general practice financing in Australia, and how nurses are currently funded. We then examine the influence on funding structures on the role of the nurse. We set out three dilemmas for policy-makers in this area: lack of an evidence base for incentives, possible untoward impacts on interdisciplinary functioning, and the substitution/enhancement debate. METHODS: This three year, multimethod study undertook rapid appraisal of 25 general practices and year-long studies in seven practices where a change was introduced to the role of the nurse. Data collected included interviews with nurses (n = 36), doctors (n = 24), and managers (n = 22), structured observation of the practice nurse (51 hours of observation), and detailed case studies of the change process in the seven year-long studies. RESULTS: Despite specific fee-for-service funding being available, only 6% of nurse activities generated such a fee. Yet the influence of the funding was to focus nurse activity on areas that they perceived were peripheral to their roles within the practice. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional relationships and organisational climate in general practices are highly influential in terms of nursing role and the ability of practices to respond to and utilise funding mechanisms. These factors need to be considered, and the development of optimal teamwork supported in the design and implementation of further initiatives that financially support nursing in general practice.

When policy meets the personal: general practice nurses in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: A significant focus of current health policy in Australia is to expand both the number and role of general practice nurses. Multiple new payment incentives have been instituted to encourage the use of practice nurses. This study explored the way these policies have framed their work. METHODS: Multimethod research using observation, workspace photographs and interviews with nurses, doctors and managers collected through rapid appraisal in 25 practices in two states, followed by case studies of the role of nurses in seven practices over one year. RESULTS: Many respondents reported unanticipated benefits in general practice functioning and teamwork as a result of employing a nurse, though this had not been a policy aim. Within funding constraints, nurses created new roles and manipulated old roles to fit their personal understanding of patient care. Policy initiatives targeting practice nurses are often based around tasks and system issues, rather than the personal creation of care and quality that patients require and nurses seek. Incentives in this study were targeted at both the uptake of nurses and specific nursing activities. CONCLUSION: Policy development and funding structures would benefit from better understanding of nurses as agents of connectivity (rather than simply as performers of tasks) as well as the nature of teamwork in practices.

Enhancing care, improving quality: the six roles of the general practice nurse.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolving roles of practice nurses in Australia and the impact of nurses on general practice function. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multimethod research in two substudies: (a) a rapid appraisal based on observation, photographs of workspaces, and interviews with nurses, doctors and managers in 25 practices in Victoria and New South Wales, conducted between September 2005 and March 2006; and (b) naturalistic longitudinal case studies of introduced change in seven practices in Victoria, NSW, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia, conducted between January 2007 and March 2008. RESULTS: We identified six roles of nurses in general practice: patient carer, organiser, quality controller, problem solver, educator and agent of connectivity. Although the first three roles are appreciated as nursing strengths by both nurses and doctors, doctors tended not to recognise nurses' educator and problem solver roles within the practice. Only 21% of the clinical activities undertaken by nurses were directly funded through Medicare. The role of the nurse as an agent of connectivity, uniting the different workers within the practice organisation, is particularly notable in small and medium-sized practices, and may be a key determinant of organisational resilience. CONCLUSION: Nursing roles may be enhanced through progressive broadening of the scope of the patient care role, fostering the nurse educator role, and addressing barriers to role enhancement, such as organisational inexperience with interprofessional work and lack of a career structure. In adjusting the funding structure for nurses, care should be taken not to create perverse incentives to limit nurses' clinical capacity or undermine the flexibility that gives practice nursing much of its value for nurses and practices.

Divisions of general practice and practice nurse development in Australia.

Nurses are consistently being seen as an integral part of a team approach to primary care service delivery, with significant policy initiatives being directed towards their employment in Australian general practice. Furthermore they are being increasingly recognised to add a value to general practice that is more than simply the 'sum of its parts'.This recognition, for GPs and practices, has often occurred on the back of an experience that has been provided or illustrated by a Division of General Practice. Divisions as the face of 'organised general practice' in this country have been instrumental in providing a broad range of support strategies and development opportunities for practice nursing, especially over the last five to ten years. Essentially, the role of Divisions has been about increasing connectivity, and acting as 'brokers' of information, opportunities, and in some cases even resources. Divisions have made a significant contribution to achievements in practice nurse development, but this has not been without challenges. As the evolution of Australian practice nursing reaches a crucial stage, Divisions can play a pivotal role in advancing this development but must seek partnerships to be effective and should continue to broaden their scope.

Time to talk, time to see: changing microeconomies of professional practice among nurses and doctors in Australian general practice.

In Australia, more nurses are entering general practice, and nurses' work is being funded in increasingly complex ways through Medicare. Little research has explored the ways doctors and nurses realign their priorities and activities when working together in general practice. We undertook rapid, intensive multimethod studies of 25 general practices to explore the ways in which the labour of nurses and doctors was structured, and the implicit decisions made by both professions about the values placed on different ways of working and on their time. Data collected included photographs, floor-plans, interviews with 37 nurses, 24 doctors and 22 practice managers, and 50 hours of structured observation. Nursing time was constructed by both nurses and doctors as being fluid and non-contingent; they were regarded as being 'available' to patients in a way that doctors were not. Compared to medical time, nursing time could be disposed more flexibly, underpinning a valorized attribute of nursing: deep clinical and personal contact with patients. The location of practice nurses' desks in areas of traffic, such as administrative stations, or in the treatment room, underpinned this valuable unstructured contact with patients. Changes to the practice nurse role through direct fee-for-service items for nurses may lead to greater congruence between the microeconomies of nursing and medicine in general practice. In a time of pressure upon a primary care workforce, this is likely to lead to more independent clinical work by nurses, but may also lead to a decrease in flexible contact with patients.

Australian general practice and pandemic influenza: models of clinical practice in an established pandemic.

To minimise the health impact of pandemic influenza, general practice will need to provide influenza-related and non-influenza primary health care, as well as contribute to the public health goal of disease control. Through interviews and workshops with general practitioners, nurses and policy leaders between March and July 2006, and literature analysis, we identified potential models of general practice in an established pandemic, and assessed their strengths and weaknesses. Three possible clinical models were identified: a default model of no change to service delivery; a streamed services model, where general practices reorganise themselves to take on either influenza-specific care or other clinical services; and a staff-determined mixed model, where staff move between different types of services. No single model or set of strategies meets the needs of all general practices to deliver and sustain the essential functions of primary health care during an established pandemic. Governments, general practice and the relevant peak professional bodies should decide before a pandemic on the suite of measures needed to support the models most suitable in their regions. Effective participation by general practice in a pandemic requires supplementary infrastructure support, changes to financial and staffing patterns, a review of legislation on medicolegal implications during an emergency, and intensive collaboration between general practices.