How does it feel to be a problem? Patients' experiences of self-management support in New Zealand and Canada.

BACKGROUND: The impact of long-term conditions is the "healthcare equivalent to climate change." People with long-term conditions often feel they are a problem, a burden to themselves, their family and friends. Providers struggle to support patients to self-manage. The Practical Reviews in Self-Management Support (PRISMS) taxonomy lists what provider actions might support patient self-management. OBJECTIVE: To offer providers advice on how to support patient self-management. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews with 40 patient-participants. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Three case studies of primary health-care organizations in New Zealand and Canada serving diverse populations. Participants were older adults with long-term conditions who needed support to live in the community. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative description to classify patient narratives of self-management support according to the PRISMS taxonomy with thematic analysis to explore how support was acceptable and effective. RESULTS: Patients identified a relationship-in-action as the mechanism, the how by which providers supported them to self-manage. When providers acted upon knowledge of patient lives and priorities, these patients were often willing to try activities or medications they had resisted in the past. Effective self-management support saw PRISMS components delivered in patient-specific combinations by individual providers or teams. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Providers who establish relationships with patients can support them to self-manage and improve health outcomes. Delivery of taxonomy components, in the absence of a relationship, is unlikely to be either acceptable or effective. Providers need to be aware that social determinants of health can constrain patients' options to self-manage.

Telecare for diabetes, CHF or COPD: effect on quality of life, hospital use and costs. A randomised controlled trial and qualitative evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of telecare on health related quality of life, self-care, hospital use, costs and the experiences of patients, informal carers and health care professionals. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned either to usual care or to additionally entering their data into a commercially-available electronic device that uploaded data once a day to a nurse-led monitoring station. Patients had congestive heart failure (Site A), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Site B), or any long-term condition, mostly diabetes (Site C). Site C contributed only intervention patients - they considered a usual care option to be unethical. The study took place in New Zealand between September 2010 and February 2012, and lasted 3 to 6 months for each patient. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (SF36). Data on experiences were collected by individual and group interviews and by questionnaire. RESULTS: There were 171 patients (98 intervention, 73 control). Quality of life, self-efficacy and disease-specific measures did not change significantly, while anxiety and depression both decreased significantly with the intervention. Hospital admissions, days in hospital, emergency department visits, outpatient visits and costs did not differ significantly between the groups. Patients at all sites were universally positive. Many felt safer and more cared-for, and said that they and their family had learned more about managing their condition. Staff could all see potential benefits of telecare, and, after some initial technical problems, many staff felt that telecare enabled them to effectively monitor more patients. CONCLUSIONS: Strongly positive patient and staff experiences and attitudes complement and contrast with small or non-significant quantitative changes. Telecare led to patients and families taking a more active role in self-management. It is likely that subgroups of patients benefitted in ways that were not measured or visible within the quantitative data, especially feelings of safety and being cared-for. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000269033.

The impact of funding changes on the implementation of primary health care policy.

AIM: To ascertain how new funding arrangements, introduced in New Zealand's 2001 Primary Health Care (PHC) Strategy, have impacted on the expansion of nurses' role in general practice. BACKGROUND: Nurses are central to the new policy that was designed to improve the health status of New Zealanders and reduce inequalities in health. Nurses were to be a crucial part of the PHC team, expanding their current roles to provide increased access to appropriate services. This paper investigates how the new funding arrangements, introduced as part of the policy, have impacted on the expansion of nurses' roles and consequently the realisation of the policy goals. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 128 key stakeholders five years after the introduction of the PHC Strategy, and surveys were completed by practice nurses, general practitioners and practice managers in purposively selected practices within the 20 participating Primary Health Organisations. FINDINGS: There has been substantial growth in the development of nursing roles for some nurses in general practice; however, this expansion has not been universal and one of the main reasons for this is the way funding devolves at the practice level. One of the consequences of the policymakers not taking into account the business model of the majority of general practices, is the resulting overarching goal of the strategy not being realised, and inequalities in health status remaining.

Health equity in the New Zealand health care system: a national survey.

INTRODUCTION: In all countries people experience different social circumstances that result in avoidable differences in health. In New Zealand, Maori, Pacific peoples, and those with lower socioeconomic status experience higher levels of chronic illness, which is the leading cause of mortality, morbidity and inequitable health outcomes. Whilst the health system can enable a fairer distribution of good health, limited national data is available to measure health equity. Therefore, we sought to find out whether health services in New Zealand were equitable by measuring the level of development of components of chronic care management systems across district health boards. Variation in provision by geography, condition or ethnicity can be interpreted as inequitable. METHODS: A national survey of district health boards (DHBs) was undertaken on macro approaches to chronic condition management with detail on cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, stroke and diabetes. Additional data from expert informant interviews on program reach and the cultural needs of Maori and Pacific peoples was sought. Survey data were analyzed on dimensions of health equity relevant to strategic planning and program delivery. Results are presented as descriptive statistics and free text. Interviews were transcribed and NVivo 8 software supported a general inductive approach to identify common themes. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from the majority of DHBs (15/21), some PHOs (21/84) and 31 expert informants. Measuring, monitoring and targeting equity is not systematically undertaken. The Health Equity Assessment Tool is used in strategic planning but not in decisions about implementing or monitoring disease programs. Variable implementation of evidence-based practices in disease management and multiple funding streams made program implementation difficult. Equity for Maori is embedded in policy, this is not so for other ethnic groups or by geography. Populations that conventional practitioners find hard to reach, despite recognized needs, are often underserved. Nurses and community health workers carried a disproportionate burden of care. Cultural and diversity training is not a condition of employment. CONCLUSIONS: There is a struggle to put equity principles into practice, indicating will without enactment. Equity is not addressed systematically below strategic levels and equity does not shape funding decisions, program development, implementation and monitoring. Equity is not incentivized although examples of exceptional practice, driven by individuals, are evident across New Zealand.