Revised model for evaluating visiting health care services in rural and remote settings.

OBJECTIVE: Visiting health care services were developed to improve access to essential health care in rural and remote areas. Evaluating these services requires a robust framework. The objective of this study was to assess the confirmability and credibility of a model of 7 principles for effective visiting health care services. SETTING: Three iterative online survey rounds administered between July and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A heterogeneous panel of 13 experts in rural and remote health care participated, including managers of health care services, senior clinical staff in rural and remote regions and research academics specialising in rural infrastructure. DESIGN: The model was appraised using the Delphi method involving iterative online survey rounds to facilitate anonymous and structured discussion between panel members. RESULTS: Findings indicate consensus between panel members and support for a revised model. The revised model includes 4 modifications: (a) proposal of a new principle titled Feasibility, (b) restructure of 2 existing principles, (c) refined shape of the model to more accurately reflect the nature of service delivery and (d) detailed definitions of each principle. CONCLUSION: This study presents a credible, revised version of the model of 7 principles for effective visiting services. This will enhance the quality of the health workforce across geographically large countries, like Australia, enabling organisations to more effectively and consistently evaluate the impact of their service on rural and remote communities.

Importance of attachment to place in growing a sustainable Australian Rural Health Workforce: A rapid review.

INTRODUCTION: Personal, community, and environmental factors can influence the attraction and retention of regional, rural, and remote health workers. However, the concept of place attachment needs further attention as a factor affecting the sustainability of the rural health workforce. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this rapid review was to explore the influence of a sense of place in attracting and retaining health professionals in rural and remote areas. DESIGN: A systematic rapid review was conducted based on an empirical model using four dimensions: place dependence, place identity, social bonding and nature bonding. English-language publications between 2011 and 2021 were sought from academic databases, including studies relevant to Australian health professionals. FINDINGS: A total of 348 articles were screened and 52 included in the review. Place attachment factors varied across disciplines and included (a) intrinsic place-based personal factors; (b) learning experiences enhancing self-efficacy and rural health work interest; (c) relational, social and community integration; and (d) connection to place with lifestyle aspirations. DISCUSSION: This rapid review provides insight into the role of relational connections in building a health workforce and suggests that community factors are important in building attachment through social bonding and place identity. Results indicate that future health workforce research should focus on career decision-making and psychological appraisals including place attachment. CONCLUSION: An attachment to place might develop through placement experiences or from a strong rural upbringing. The importance of the relational interactions within a work community and the broader community is seen as an important factor in attracting, recruiting, and sustaining a rural health workforce.

Risk factors for violence in an emergency department: Nurses' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Work-related violence remains a significant problem in healthcare settings, including EDs. Violence risk assessment tools have been developed to improve risk mitigation in this setting; however, incorporation of these tools into standard hospital processes remains scarce. This research aimed to explore nurses' perspectives on the Bröset Violence Checklist used in routine violence risk assessment and their recommendations for additional items. METHODS: Thirty nursing staff who used the Bröset Violence Checklist (BVC) as standard practice for 5 years participated in two focus groups where 23 violence risk factors were presented. Using multiple methods, participants were asked to select and elaborate from a pre-determined list what they considered most useful in violence risk assessment in respect to descriptors and terminology. RESULTS: Quantitative data showed most risk factors presented to the group were considered to be predictive of violence. Ten were regarded as associated with risk, and overt behaviours received the highest votes. The terms 'shouting and demanding' was preferred over 'boisterous', and 'cognitive impairment' over 'confusion'. Patient clinical characteristics and staff perceptions of harm, inability to observe subtle behaviour, imposed restrictions and interventions and environmental conditions and impact were also important considerations. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that violence risk assessment include: history of violence, cognitive impairment, psychotic symptoms, drug and alcohol influence, shouting and demanding, verbal abuse/hostility, impulsivity, agitation, irritability and imposed restrictions and interventions. These violence risk factors fit within the four categories of historical, clinical, behavioural and situational.