Australian podiatry workforce: findings from the PAIGE cross-sectional study of Australian podiatrists.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the dynamics of the podiatry workforce is essential for the sustainability of the profession. This study aimed to describe the podiatry workforce characteristics and identify factors associated with rural practice location. METHODS: We used an exploratory descriptive design from data obtained during cross sectional study: Podiatrists in Australia: Investigating Graduate Employment through four online surveys (2017-2020). Demographic and workplace characteristics including career development were described. Univariate logistic regressions were used to determine associations with rural or metropolitan practice location. RESULTS: Data were included from 1, 135 podiatrists (21% of n = 5,429). There were 716 (69% of n = 1,042) females, 724 (65% of n = 1,118) worked in the public health service and 574 (51% of 1,129) were salaried employees. There were 706 (87% of n = 816) podiatrists with access to paid annual leave and 592 (72% of n = 816) to paid sick leave. There were 87 (32% of n = 276) podiatrists who reported 51-75% of workload involved Medicare bulk-billed Chronic Disease Management plans, and 324 (74% of n = 436) not utilising telehealth. The majority of podiatrists (57% of n = 1,048) indicated their average consultation length was 21 -30 min, and patients typically waited < 3 days for an appointment (41% of n = 1,043). Univariate logistic regression identified podiatrists working in metropolitan settings have less years working in current location (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96, 0.99), less working locations (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.86, 0.97), were less likely to have access to paid annual leave (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.43, 0.98), and paid sick leave (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.46, 0.95), shorter waiting periods for appointments (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.30, 0.64) and more likely to utilise telehealth within their practice (OR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.19, 3.50) than those in rural locations. CONCLUSION: These results provide insight into the profession uncommonly captured in workforce planning data. This included the number of working locations, billing practices and wait lists. This also highlights opportunities to promote rural training pathways, service integration to build attractive podiatry positions that are tailored to meet the needs of rural communities and solutions to make telehealth more accessible to podiatrists.

Mandatory bulk billing policies may have differential rural effects: an exploration of Australian data.

INTRODUCTION: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, Australian general practices have rapidly pivoted to telephone and video call consultations for infection control and prevention. Initially these telehealth consultations were required to be bulk billed (doctors could only charge fees equivalent to the national Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS)). The potential impact of this policy on general practices − and particularly rural general practices - has been difficult to assess because there is limited published data about which practices are less likely to bulk bill and therefore more impacted by mandatory bulk billing policies. There was concern that bulk billing only policies could have a broader impact on rural practices, which may rely on mixed or private billing for viability in small communities where complex care is often needed. This study aimed to understand the patterns of bulk billing nationally and explore the characteristics of practices more or less likely to bulk bill patients, to identify the potential impact of a rapid shift to bulk billing only policies. METHODS: General practice bulk billing patterns were described using aggregate statistics from Australian Department of Health public MBS datasets. Bulk billing rates were explored over time by rurality, and state or territory. Next, questions about bulk billing were included in a cross-sectional survey of practices conducted in 2019 by General Practice Supervisors Australia (GPSA). Practice bulk billing patterns were explored by rurality, state or territory and practice size at univariate level before a multivariate logistic regression model was done, including the statistically significant variables. RESULTS: Nationally, bulk billing rates for general practice non-referred attendances increased over 2012-2019 from 82% to 86% but declined slightly in Modified Monash Model (MMM)2−7 (rural areas) at the end of this period. Further, bulk billing rates varied by rurality, and were highest in very remote (MMM7) (89-91%) and metropolitan areas (MMM1) (83-87%) and lowest in regional centres (MMM2) (76-82%) over this period. The results from the GPSA survey concurred with national data, showing that the proportion of practices bulk billing all patients was highest in metropolitan locations (28%) and lowest in regional centres and large rural towns (MMM2−3) (16%). Smaller practices (five or fewer general practitioners) were more likely to bulk bill all patients than were larger ones (six or more general practitioners). Multivariate modelling showed that bulk billing all patients was statistically significantly (p<0.05) less likely for larger practices compared with smaller ones, and for rural practices (MMM2−7) compared with those in metropolitan areas. CONCLUSION: Mandatory bulk billing policies should accommodate the fact that bulk billing varies by context, including rurality and the size of a practice, and has been decreasing in rural areas over recent years. Rapidly pivoting to bulk billing only service models may put pressure on rural and large practices unless they have time to adjust their business models and have ways to offset the loss of billings. Policies that allow for a range of billing arrangements may be important for practices to fit billings to their local context of care, including in rural settings, thereby supporting business viability and the availability of sustainable primary care services.

A Checklist for Implementing Rural Pathways to Train, Develop and Support Health Workers in Low and Middle-Income Countries.

Background: There is an urgent need to scale up global action on rural workforce development. This World Health Organization-sponsored research aimed to develop a Rural Pathways Checklist. Its purpose was to guide the practical implementation of rural workforce training, development, and support strategies in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). It was intended for any LMICs, stakeholder, health worker, context, or health problem. Method: Multi-methods involved: (1) focus group concept testing; (2) a policy analysis; (3) a scoping review of LMIC literature; (4) consultation with a global Expert Reference Group and; (5) field-testing over an 18-month period. Results: The Checklist included eight actions for implementing rural pathways in LMICs: establishing community needs; policies and partners; exploring existing workers and scope; selecting health workers; education and training; working conditions for recruitment and retention; accreditation and recognition of workers; professional support/up-skilling and; monitoring and evaluation. For each action, a summary of LMICs-specific evidence and prompts was developed to stimulate reflection and learning. To support implementation, rural pathways exemplars from different WHO regions were also compiled. Field-testing showed the Checklist is fit for purpose to guide holistic planning and benchmarking of rural pathways, irrespective of LMICs, stakeholder, or health worker type. Conclusion: The Rural Pathways Checklist provides an agreed global conceptual framework for the practical implementation of "grow your own" strategies in LMICs. It can be applied to scale-up activity for rural workforce training and development in LMICs, where health workers are most limited and health needs are greatest.

Rural Work and Specialty Choices of International Students Graduating from Australian Medical Schools: Implications for Policy.

Almost 500 international students graduate from Australian medical schools annually, with around 70% commencing medical work in Australia. If these Foreign Graduates of Accredited Medical Schools (FGAMS) wish to access Medicare benefits, they must initially work in Distribution Priority Areas (mainly rural). This study describes and compares the geographic and specialty distribution of FGAMS. Participants were 18,093 doctors responding to Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life national annual surveys, 2012-2017. Multiple logistic regression models explored location and specialty outcomes for three training groups (FGAMS; other Australian-trained (domestic) medical graduates (DMGs); and overseas-trained doctors (OTDs)). Only 19% of FGAMS worked rurally, whereas 29% of Australia's population lives rurally. FGAMS had similar odds of working rurally as DMGs (OR 0.93, 0.77-1.13) and about half the odds of OTDs (OR 0.48, 0.39-0.59). FGAMS were more likely than DMGs to work as general practitioners (GPs) (OR 1.27, 1.03-1.57), but less likely than OTDs (OR 0.74, 0.59-0.92). The distribution of FGAMS, particularly geographically, is sub-optimal for improving Australia's national medical workforce goals of adequate rural and generalist distribution. Opportunities remain for policy makers to expand current policies and develop a more comprehensive set of levers to promote rural and GP distribution from this group.