Acceptability and optimisation of resources to support antidepressant cessation: a qualitative think-aloud study with patients in Australian primary care.

BACKGROUND: Stopping long-term (>12 months) antidepressant use can be difficult due to unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. Many people do not recognise withdrawal symptoms or understand how to minimise them while safely discontinuing antidepressants. To address the gaps, the authors developed the 'Redressing long-term antidepressant use' (RELEASE) resources, comprising a medicines information brochure, a decision aid, and drug- specific hyperbolic tapering protocols. AIM: To explore patients' acceptability of the RELEASE resources to optimise their use and impact. DESIGN AND SETTING: A think-aloud interview study among adults with lived experience of long-term antidepressant use conducted in south-east Queensland, Australia, between November 2021 and June 2022. METHOD: Participants were purposively sampled from general practices and interviewed face-to-face or via videoconferencing. Participants verbalised their thoughts, impressions, and feelings while engaging with each resource. Interviews were analysed using a deductive coding framework, including codes related to acceptability and optimisation. Interviews were analysed in a series of four tranches, with iterative modifications made to resources after each tranche. RESULTS: Participants (n = 14) reported the resources to be relevant, informative, motivational, and usable. Participants' comments informed modifications, including changes to wording, content order, and layout. Several participants expressed frustration that they had not had these resources earlier, with one reporting the information could have been 'life changing'. Many commented on the need for these resources to be widely available to both patients and doctors. CONCLUSION: The RELEASE resources were found to be acceptable, useful, and potentially life changing. The effectiveness of these consumer-informed resources in supporting safe cessation of long-term antidepressants is currently being tested in general practice.

Lessons from the Netherlands for Australia: cross-country comparison of trends in antidepressant dispensing 2013-2021 and contextual factors influencing prescribing.

BACKGROUND: There is concern internationally about increasing antidepressant use. Most antidepressants are prescribed in general practice. The aim of this study was to compare trends in antidepressant dispensing in Australia and the Netherlands over the 9years from 2013 to 2021, and to explore reasons for differences. METHODS: A convergent mixed methods study including analysis of publicly available antidepressant dispensing data obtained from Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics and a search of relevant literature to compare contextual factors influencing prescribing were undertaken. RESULTS: In 2013, antidepressant dispensing rates in Australia were nearly twice as high as those in the Netherlands (82.5 versus 44.3DDD/1000/day) and increased to be more than twice as high by 2021 (115.6 versus 48.8DDD/1000/day). Antidepressant dispensing increased by 40% in Australia over the nine study years, but by only 10% in the Netherlands. Our scan of the literature confirms that while population factors, health system structure, and clinical guideline recommendations are largely consistent across the two countries, a multifaceted approach in the Netherlands involving improved access to non-pharmacological alternatives, initiatives targeting safer antidepressant prescribing, and tight regulation of pharmaceutical industry influence on prescribers, has successfully curtailed increasing antidepressant use. CONCLUSIONS: Australia may learn from the Netherlands' approach to redress increasing antidepressant use.

RELEASE (REdressing Long-tErm Antidepressant uSE): protocol for a 3-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial effectiveness-implementation hybrid type-1 in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Many people experience withdrawal symptoms when they attempt to stop antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms are readily misconstrued for relapse or ongoing need for medication, contributing to long-term use (> 12 months). Long-term antidepressant use is increasing internationally yet is not recommended for most people. Long-term use is associated with adverse effects including weight gain, sexual dysfunction, lethargy, emotional numbing and increased risk of falls and fractures. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of two multi-strategy interventions (RELEASE and RELEASE+) in supporting the safe cessation of long-term antidepressants, estimate cost-effectiveness, and evaluate implementation strategies. METHODS: DESIGN: 3-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial effectiveness-implementation hybrid type-1. SETTING: primary care general practices in southeast Queensland, Australia. POPULATION: adults 18 years or older taking antidepressants for longer than 1 year. Practices will be randomised on a 1.5:1:1 ratio of Usual care:RELEASE:RELEASE+. INTERVENTION: RELEASE for patients includes evidence-based information and resources and an invitation to medication review; RELEASE for GPs includes education, training and printable resources via practice management software. RELEASE+ includes additional internet support for patients and prescribing support including audit and feedback for GPs. OUTCOME MEASURES: the primary outcome is antidepressant use at 12 months self-reported by patients. Cessation is defined as 0 mg antidepressant maintained for at least 2 weeks. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: at 6 and 12 months are health-related quality of life, antidepressant side effects, well-being, withdrawal symptoms, emotional numbing, beliefs about antidepressants, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms; and at 12 months 75% reduction in antidepressant dose; aggregated practice level antidepressant prescribing, and health service utilisation for costs. SAMPLE SIZE: 653 patients from 28 practices. A concurrent evaluation of implementation will be through mixed methods including interviews with up to 40 patients and primary care general practitioners, brief e-surveys, and study administrative data to assess implementation outcomes (adoption and fidelity). DISCUSSION: The RELEASE study will develop new knowledge applicable internationally on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation of two multi-strategy interventions in supporting the safe cessation of long-term antidepressants to improve primary health care and outcomes for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR, ACTRN12622001379707p. Registered on 27 October 2022.

An eConsultant versus a hospital-based outpatient consultation for general (internal) medicine: a costing analysis.

BACKGROUND: The eConsultant model of care is an outpatient substitution approach which has been evaluated and implemented extensively internationally. It provides an asynchronous, digital, clinician-to-clinician advice service, giving primary care physicians remote access to specialist support for patient care within 3 business days. Results from initial trials of the eConsultant model in Australia support international evidence of reduced wait times and improved access to specialist input, avoidance of face-to-face hospital outpatient visits, and better integrated care. This study compared the cost of delivery of an eConsultant episode of care with that of a hospital-based outpatient appointment. METHODS: A cost-minimisation analysis, using a decision analytic model, was used to compare the two approaches. eConsultant costs were calculated from specialist reported data (minutes spent preparing the response; the number of patients referred subsequently for a hospital-based outpatient appointment) and administration staff data (time spent recording the occasion-of-service). Outpatient costs were calculated using finance data and information from outpatient clinic managers at the hospital-based outpatient clinic. The primary outcome was incremental cost saving per patient from a hospital system perspective. Uncertainty was explored using one-way sensitivity analyses and characterised with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: The traditional referral pathway cost estimate was $587.20/consult compared to $226.13/consult for an eConsultant episode: an efficiency saving of $361.07 per patient. The incremental difference between eConsultant and traditional care was most sensitive to the cost estimate of an outpatient attendance, the time for a specialist to complete an eConsult, and the probability of a patient requiring a face-to-face hospital-based attendance following an eConsult. However, at the upper bounds of each of these estimates, an eConsult remained the most cost-efficient model. In 96.5% of the Monte Carlo simulations eConsult was found to be more cost efficient than the traditional approach. CONCLUSIONS: The eConsultant model of care was associated with a 61.5% efficiency gain, allowing diversion of support to hospital-based outpatient appointments.

Supporting complex care in general practice via an eConsultant model of care: the Australian specialist perspective.

BACKGROUND: Accessing timely specialist physician advice and guidance is of critical importance to both Australian GP specialists (GPs) and their patients. The traditional method of referral, triage and subsequent face-to-face (FTF) consultation is facing challenges from an ever increasing volume of referrals and the needs of underserved populations. In response to such issues, electronic consults (eConsults) have been successfully used internationally to provide GPs with a means of asynchronously accessing specialist physician advice and guidance within 72h. Few studies have addressed the potential impact of eConsults from the view of the non-GP specialist receiving the request, and none specifically related to specialist adult medicine physicians. The aim of this study was to determine the perceptions of current Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) adult medicine Fellows towards establishing an eConsult model of care within their own clinical practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 RACP adult medicine Fellows between December 2019 and February 2020. Purposive and snowball sampling strategies were used to recruit physicians of differing ages and gender from diverse specialties and healthcare settings. The data were subjected to a descriptive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We describe five key themes of relevance to study participants: (1) improved access to non-GP specialist care; (2) the business model in relation to remuneration and time; (3) enhanced GP-Physician relationships; (4) impact on physician work-life balance; and (5) the need for a structured model of care. There was broad consensus that a significant number of outpatient referrals to adult medicine physicians would be more appropriately addressed in primary care with support via an asynchronous eConsult arrangement. RACP Fellows agreed this could improve access to timely specialist advice, place downward pressure on outpatient FTF clinic waiting times and reduce unnecessary patient travel. CONCLUSION: These findings identify the drivers and barriers to the establishment of an Australian eConsultant model of care from the adult medicine physician's perspective.

Implementing a general practitioner-to-general physician eConsult service (eConsultant) in Australia.

BACKGROUND: In response to lengthy wait times for specialist outpatient appointments, electronic consultation (eConsult) services have developed globally, providing asynchronous, secure and timely communication between general practitioner (GP) and specialist. This study aims to track adoption of a Queensland eConsultant service in two Australian Primary Health Networks (Western Queensland and Brisbane South) to understand key barriers and enablers to adoption and inform modification of the implementation strategy.  METHODS: Our theory-informed mixed-methods evaluation assessed implementation between July 2020 and March 2022. Adoption and implementation activities were prospectively recorded in bespoke tracking spreadsheets with implementation activities coded against the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies. Semi-structured interviews with GPs and stakeholders informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) were conducted to understand determinants of implementation.  RESULTS: Of the 40 practices invited to take part in the eConsultant service, 20 (50%) enrolled. Of the 97 GPs who consented, 38 sent at least one Request for Advice (RFA) to the eConsultant with a total of 112 RFA sent. Implementation was predominantly guided by eight strategies. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 GPs and 4 stakeholders (12 from rural/remote regions, 11 females and two sole practitioners). Interviewees felt the eConsultant service supported outpatient appointment avoidance and provided efficient, timely access to specialist support for GPs and their patients. Barriers identified to using eConsultant related to digital infrastructure, competing priorities, and keeping the service 'front of mind'. Key enablers identified were the relative advantage of eConsultant over other options, patient benefits and COVD-19 facilitating the use of digital technology. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation highlighted service enablers as well as user priorities for broader implementation. A focus on a well-integrated digital system and availability of a variety of eConsultant specialties are seen as key strategies to embedding the eConsultant option in GP advice processes in Australia.

Feasibility of an asynchronous general practitioner-to-general physician eConsultant outpatient substitution program: A Queensland pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The use of an 'eConsultant' to support the family physician is an established outpatient substitution model in North America. This pilot study investigates the feasibility of the eConsultant model for complex chronic disease management within the Australian setting. METHOD: This pilot study was implemented in one urban and four rural/remote general practices in one state. The general practitioner (GP) sent a request for advice (RFA), a clinical summary with a specific clinical question/s, via secure messaging to a physician working remotely. Responses were required for GP/patient follow-up within 72 hours. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) time for general physician reply was 2.1 (1.2) days, and mean (SD) time from initial to subsequent GP/patient review was 14.8 (16.7) days. Only 13.3% of eConsultations required a subsequent face-to-face outpatient department appointment. DISCUSSION: The eConsultant model is feasible in Australia, with potential for improving access and reducing time to non-GP specialist input.

Approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are the most frequent indication for which antidepressants are prescribed. Long-term antidepressant use is driving much of the internationally observed rise in antidepressant consumption. Surveys of antidepressant users suggest that 30% to 50% of long-term antidepressant prescriptions had no evidence-based indication. Unnecessary use of antidepressants puts people at risk of adverse events. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking regarding the effectiveness and safety of approaches to discontinuing long-term antidepressants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of approaches for discontinuation versus continuation of long-term antidepressant use for depressive and anxiety disorders in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched all databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing approaches to discontinuation with continuation of antidepressants (or usual care) for people with depression or anxiety who are prescribed antidepressants for at least six months. Interventions included discontinuation alone (abrupt or taper), discontinuation with psychological therapy support, and discontinuation with minimal intervention. Primary outcomes were successful discontinuation rate, relapse (as defined by authors of the original study), withdrawal symptoms, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, quality of life, social and occupational functioning, and severity of illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies involving 4995 participants. Nearly all studies were conducted in a specialist mental healthcare service and included participants with recurrent depression (i.e. two or more episodes of depression prior to discontinuation). All included trials were at high risk of bias. The main limitation of the review is bias due to confounding withdrawal symptoms with symptoms of relapse of depression. Withdrawal symptoms (such as low mood, dizziness) may have an effect on almost every outcome including adverse events, quality of life, social functioning, and severity of illness. Abrupt discontinuation Thirteen studies reported abrupt discontinuation of antidepressant. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that abrupt discontinuation without psychological support may increase risk of relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 2.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.74; 1373 participants, 10 studies) and there is insufficient evidence of its effect on adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.99; 1012 participants, 7 studies; I² = 37%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of abrupt discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. None of these studies included successful discontinuation rate as a primary endpoint. Discontinuation by "taper" Eighteen studies examined discontinuation by "tapering" (one week or longer). Most tapering regimens lasted four weeks or less. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that "tapered" discontinuation may lead to higher risk of relapse (HR 2.97, 95% CI 2.24 to 3.93; 1546 participants, 13 studies) with no or little difference in adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.38; 1479 participants, 7 studies; I² = 0%) compared to continuation of antidepressants, without specific assessment of withdrawal symptoms. Evidence about the effects of discontinuation on withdrawal symptoms (1 study) is very uncertain. Discontinuation with psychological support Four studies reported discontinuation with psychological support. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that initiation of preventive cognitive therapy (PCT), or MBCT, combined with "tapering" may result in successful discontinuation rates of 40% to 75% in the discontinuation group (690 participants, 3 studies). Data from control groups in these studies were requested but are not yet available. Low-certainty evidence suggests that discontinuation combined with psychological intervention may result in no or little effect on relapse (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19; 690 participants, 3 studies) compared to continuation of antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms were not measured. Pooling data on adverse events was not possible due to insufficient information (3 studies). Discontinuation with minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence from one study suggests that a letter to the general practitioner (GP) to review antidepressant treatment may result in no or little effect on successful discontinuation rate compared to usual care (6% versus 8%; 146 participants, 1 study) or on relapse (relapse rate 26% vs 13%; 146 participants, 1 study). No data on withdrawal symptoms nor adverse events were provided. None of the studies used low-intensity psychological interventions such as online support or a changed pharmaceutical formulation that allows tapering with low doses over several months. Insufficient data were available for the majority of people taking antidepressants in the community (i.e. those with only one or no prior episode of depression), for people aged 65 years and older, and for people taking antidepressants for anxiety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, relatively few studies have focused on approaches to discontinuation of long-term antidepressants. We cannot make any firm conclusions about effects and safety of the approaches studied to date. The true effect and safety are likely to be substantially different from the data presented due to assessment of relapse of depression that is confounded by withdrawal symptoms. All other outcomes are confounded with withdrawal symptoms. Most tapering regimens were limited to four weeks or less. In the studies with rapid tapering schemes the risk of withdrawal symptoms may be similar to studies using abrupt discontinuation which may influence the effectiveness of the interventions. Nearly all data come from people with recurrent depression.   There is an urgent need for trials that adequately address withdrawal confounding bias, and carefully distinguish relapse from withdrawal symptoms. Future studies should report key outcomes such as successful discontinuation rate and should include populations with one or no prior depression episodes in primary care, older people, and people taking antidepressants for anxiety and use tapering schemes longer than 4 weeks.

Long-term antidepressant use in general practice: a qualitative study of GPs' views on discontinuation.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable concern about increasing antidepressant use, with Australians among the highest users in the world. Evidence suggests this is driven by patients on long-term use, rather than new prescriptions. Most antidepressant prescriptions are generated in general practice, and it is likely that attempts to discontinue are either not occurring or are proving unsuccessful. AIM: To explore GPs' insights about long-term antidepressant prescribing and discontinuation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative interview study with Australian GPs. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews explored GPs' discontinuation experiences, decision-making, perceived risks and benefits, and support for patients. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were identified from interviews with 22 GPs. The first, 'not a simple deprescribing decision', spoke to the complex decision-making GPs undertake in determining whether a patient is ready to discontinue. The second, 'a journey taken together', captured a set of steps GPs take together with their patients to initiate and set-up adequate support before, during, and after discontinuation. The third, 'supporting change in GPs' prescribing practices', described what GPs would like to see change to better support them and their patients to discontinue antidepressants. CONCLUSION: GPs see discontinuation of long-term antidepressant use as more than a simple deprescribing decision. It begins with considering a patient's social and relational context, and is a journey involving careful preparation, tailored care, and regular review. These insights suggest interventions to redress long-term use will need to take these considerations into account and be placed in a wider discussion about the use of antidepressants.

Community-based integrated care versus hospital outpatient care for managing patients with complex type 2 diabetes: costing analysis.

Objective This study compared the cost of an integrated primary-secondary care general practitioner (GP)-based Beacon model with usual care at hospital outpatient departments (OPDs) for patients with complex type 2 diabetes. Methods A costing analysis was completed alongside a non-inferiority randomised control trial. Costs were calculated using information from accounting data and interviews with clinic managers. Two OPDs and three GP-based Beacon practices participated. In the Beacon practices, GPs with a special interest in advanced diabetes care worked with an endocrinologist and diabetes nurse educator to care for referred patients. The main outcome was incremental cost saving per patient course of treatment from a health system perspective. Uncertainty was characterised with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Results The Beacon model is cost saving: the incremental cost saving per patient was A$365 (95% confidence interval -A$901, A$55) and was cost saving in 93.7% of simulations. The key contributors to the variance in the cost saving per patient course of treatment were the mean number of patients seen per site and the number of additional presentations per course of treatment associated with the Beacon model. Conclusions Beacon clinics were less costly per patient course of treatment than usual care in hospital OPDs for equivalent clinical outcomes. Local contractual arrangements and potential variation in the operational cost structure are of significant consideration in determining the cost-efficiency of Beacon models. What is known about this topic? Despite the growing importance of achieving care quality within constrained budgets, there are few costing studies comparing clinically-equivalent hospital and community-based care models. What does this paper add? Costing analyses comparing hospital-based to GP-based health services require considerable effort and are complex. We show that GP-based Beacon clinics for patients with complex chronic disease can be less costly per patient course of treatment than usual care offered in hospital OPDs. What are the implications for practitioners? In addition to improving access and convenience for patients, transferring care from hospital to the community can reduce health system costs.

The effects of social group interventions for depression: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing prevalence of prolonged antidepressant use globally. Social group interventions may be an effective way to manage mild to moderate depression, especially with patients seeking to discontinue antidepressant use. This systematic review evaluates studies that used social group interventions to manage depression. METHODS: Studies published up to June 2019 in nine bibliographic databases were identified using search terms related to depression, social interventions, and social participation. Formal therapies for depression (cognitive behaviour therapy, music therapy) were excluded as they have been reviewed elsewhere. RESULTS: 24 studies met inclusion criteria; 14 RCTs, 6 non-randomised controlled trials and 4 pre-post evaluations. In total, 28 social group programs were evaluated, 10 arts-based groups, 13 exercise groups and 5 others. Programs ranged in 'dose' from 5 to 150 hours (M = 31 hours) across 4 to 75 weeks (M = 15 weeks) and produced effect sizes on depression in the small to very large range (Hedge's g = .18 to 3.19, M = 1.14). A regression analysis revealed no participant variables, study variables or intervention variables were related to effect size on depression. LIMITATIONS: Risks of bias were found, primarily in the non-randomised studies, which means the findings must be regarded as preliminary until replicated. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that social group interventions are an effective way to manage mild to moderate depression symptoms in a variety of populations. This approach may also help to prevent relapse among patients tapering off antidepressant medication.

Improving quality in general practice using the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT) with Primary Health Network support.

Optimal primary care sector performance is vital for ensuring the delivery of quality health services and effective clinical management of populations. The Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT) incorporates subjective staff input and objective indicators to measure 13 elements of organisational performance. This study aimed to measure change in organisational performance for general practices using the PC-PIT with Primary Health Network (PHN) support. A pre-post design was used for changes in PC-PIT subjective and objective scores. Practices used results with PHN support to complete two Plan Do Study Act initiatives and were reassessed 9-months later. PC-PIT scales were dichotomised into lower and higher scores, with odds ratios used to determine effect size. Staff survey response rates were 55.4% at baseline and 50.1% at follow up. There were modest increases in the likelihood of staff rating several elements higher at follow up. When implemented with PHN support staff, the PC-PIT has the potential for effective, focussed and sustained quality improvement, with capacity to support Health Care Home model transition and implementation.

Clinical outcomes of an integrated primary-secondary model of care for individuals with complex type 2 diabetes: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to determine if a Beacon model of integrated care utilising general practitioners (GPs) with special interests could achieve similar clinical outcomes to a hospital-based specialist diabetes outpatient clinic. METHODS: This pragmatic non-inferiority multisite randomised controlled trial assigned individuals with complex type 2 diabetes to care delivered by a Beacon clinic or to usual care delivered by a hospital outpatient department, in a 3:1 ratio. Owing to the nature of the study, researchers were only blinded during the allocation process. Eligible participants were aged 18 or over, had been referred by their usual GP to the hospital central referral hub with type 2 diabetes and had been triaged to be seen within 30 or 90 days. The intervention consisted of diabetes management in primary care by GPs with a special interest who had been upskilled in complex diabetes under the supervision of an endocrinologist. The primary outcome was HbA1c at 12 months post-recruitment. The non-inferiority margin was 4.4 mmol/mol (0.4%). Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses are reported. RESULTS: Between 27 November 2012 and 14 July 2015, 352 individuals were recruited and 305 comprised the intention-to-treat sample (71 in usual care group and 234 in the Beacon model group). The Beacon model was non-inferior to usual care for both the per-protocol (difference -0.38 mmol/mol [95% CI -4.72, 3.96]; -0.03% [95% CI -0.43, 0.36]) and the intention-to-treat (difference -1.28 mmol/mol [95% CI -5.96, 3.40]; -0.12% [95% CI -0.55, 0.31]) analyses. Non-inferiority was sustained in a sensitivity analysis at 12 months. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in the secondary outcomes of BP, lipids or quality of life as measured by the 12 item short-form health survey (SF-12v2) and the diabetes-related quality of life (DQoL-Brief) survey. Safety indicators did not differ between groups. Participant satisfaction on the eight-item client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8) was good in both groups, but scores were significantly higher in the Beacon model group than the usual care group (mean [SD] 28.4 [4.9] vs 25.6 [4.9], respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In individuals with type 2 diabetes, a model of integrated care delivered in the community by GPs with a special interest can safely achieve clinical outcomes that are not inferior to those achieved with gold-standard hospital-based specialist outpatient clinics. Individuals receiving care in the community had greater satisfaction. Further studies will determine the cost of delivering this model of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000380897 FUNDING: The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT1001157).

Establishing a new model of integrated primary and secondary care based around general practice: a case study of lessons learned and challenges.

This case study describes the development and implementation of an innovative integrated primary-secondary model of care for people with complex diabetes. The aim of the paper is to present the experiences of clinicians and researchers involved in implementing the 'Beacon' model by providing a discussion of the contextual factors, including lessons learned, challenges and solutions. Beacon-type models of community care for people with chronic disease are well placed to deliver on Australia's health care reform agenda, and this commentary provides rich contextual information relevant to the translation of such models into policy and practice.

Impact of a general practitioner-led integrated model of care on the cost of potentially preventable diabetes-related hospitalisations.

AIM: To estimate potential savings for Australia's health care system through the implementation of an innovative Beacon model of care for patients with complex diabetes. METHODS: A prospective controlled trial was conducted comparing a multidisciplinary, community-based, integrated primary-secondary care diabetes service with usual care at a hospital diabetes outpatient clinic. We extracted patient hospitalisation data from the Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection and used Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups to assign costs to potentially preventable hospitalisations for diabetes. RESULTS: 327 patients with complex diabetes referred by their general practitioner for specialist outpatient care were included in the analysis. The integrated model of care had potential for national cost savings of $132.5 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in hospitalisations attributable to better integrated primary/secondary care can yield large cost savings. Models such as the Beacon are highly relevant to current national health care reform initiatives to improve the continuity and efficiency of care for those with complex chronic disease in primary care.

A qualitative follow-up study of diabetes patients' appraisal of an integrated diabetes service in primary care.

As the prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to escalate, health system reform is seeking better patient outcomes through new models of care that aim to provide the most appropriate care when needed. Patients' experiences of service innovations can shed light on the successes and challenges of implementing change. This paper explores patients' views of a new model of integrated care for patients with type 2 diabetes. A mixed-methods, randomised control trial evaluated a beacon clinic model of care for complex type 2 diabetes led by specialist general practitioners (GPs) in primary care settings in Brisbane, Australia. In this qualitative sub-study conducted between May 2014 and January 2015, 25 consenting participants were re-interviewed after 12 months using semi-structured questions, to explore their experiences of the new model of care. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically. In the first theme, Organised for patient-centred care, patients appraised the structural elements of the clinic. For most, it was an enabling experience which included convenience, flexibility and prompt communication back to the referring GPs. The preferences of a minority were partly realised, as they tried to understand the clinical purpose in comparison with traditional care. The second theme, Positioned as partners in care, revealed the pivotal role of patient-clinician relationships in patients' engagement with advice and self-care. Most found clinicians' collaborative approach engaging and motivating. A small minority with contextual concerns were disappointed with the focus on diabetes and struggled to engage fully with the model. Most participants valued this model of care, which reflects a capacity to manage the variable and complex needs of most patients referred for care. However, multi-level strategies are also needed to enhance patients' engagement with care and the sustainability of integrated diabetes care.

Influence of patient-assessed quality of chronic illness care and patient activation on health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the modulating effect of patient activation on this association. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A population-based prospective cohort study of people with Type 2 diabetes in Queensland, Australia, using data from self-report questionnaires, collected annually from 2008 (n = 3761) to 2010 (n = 3040). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predictors were the 20-item PACIC (dichotomized at the score of 3), and the 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM), dichotomized into activation Levels 1 and 2 versus Levels 3 and 4. Analyses were restricted to participants whose PACIC and PAM categories did not change over 2 years of follow-up. Outcome variables were EQ-5D index and EQ VAS dichotomized at the uppermost quartile, and EQ-5D index also dichotomized at the median. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: An inverse probability weighted Poisson regression with a log-link function and a binary response variable for each outcome was used to obtain risk ratios (RRs), and the interaction between PACIC and PAM was statistically modelled, taking into consideration patient characteristics and the respective baseline outcome variable. RESULTS: The positive association between the PACIC and EQ VAS was seen only in participants with low activation (adjusted RR: 3.91; 95% CI: 1.40-10.95; P = 0.009), and not in those with high activation, indicating the non-synergistic interaction effect of the PACIC and PAM. This association was not found with EQ-5D index. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic care received consistently over time can positively affect health status, and benefit patients with low activation.

The work of local healthcare innovation: a qualitative study of GP-led integrated diabetes care in primary health care.

BACKGROUND: Service delivery innovation is at the heart of efforts to combat the growing burden of chronic disease and escalating healthcare expenditure. Small-scale, locally-led service delivery innovation is a valuable source of learning about the complexities of change and the actions of local change agents. This exploratory qualitative study captures the perspectives of clinicians and managers involved in a general practitioner-led integrated diabetes care innovation. METHODS: Data on these change agents' perspectives on the local innovation and how it works in the local context were collected through focus groups and semi-structured interviews at two primary health care sites. Transcribed data were analysed thematically. Normalization Process Theory provided a framework to explore perspectives on the individual and collective work involved in putting the innovation into practice in local service delivery contexts. RESULTS: Twelve primary health care clinicians, hospital-based medical specialists and practice managers participated in the study, which represented the majority involved in the innovation at the two sites. The thematic analysis highlighted three main themes of local innovation work: 1) trusting and embedding new professional relationships; 2) synchronizing services and resources; and 3) reconciling realities of innovation work. As a whole, the findings show that while locally-led service delivery innovation is designed to respond to local problems, convincing others to trust change and managing the boundary tensions is core to local work, particularly when it challenges taken-for-granted practices and relationships. Despite this, the findings also show that local innovators can and do act in both discretionary and creative ways to progress the innovation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Normalization Process Theory uncovered some critical professional, organizational and structural factors early in the progression of the innovation. The key to local service delivery innovation lies in building coalitions of trust at the point of service delivery and persuading organizational and institutional mindsets to consider the opportunities of locally-led innovation.

Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in Type 2 Diabetes: A Longitudinal Study.

The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was designed to measure care congruent with several elements of the chronic care model (CCM), including self-management support and delivery system design. However, support for the a priori 5-subscale structure of the PACIC in previous research has been conflicting. Thus, we aim to investigate psychometric characteristics of the PACIC including the content and stability of its construct over time. A population-based prospective cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes was conducted in Queensland, Australia, from 2008 (N = 3,761) to 2010 (N = 3,040). Participants completed annually the 20-item PACIC as well as measures of providers' adherence to guideline-recommended self-management support activities. We used exploratory factor analysis to determine its factor structure and examined internal consistency as well as agreement between the PACIC at baseline with repeated measurements at follow-up after 1 and 2 years. We also determined a criterion-related validity using multinomial logistic regression to explore PACIC's association with providers' self-management support. A one-factor structure was deemed optimal according to our findings. High internal consistency and moderate agreement within the scales over time were observed. Higher PACIC scores predicted better providers' self-management support. In conclusion, the PACIC is a reliable, valid, and reproducible instrument for assessment of diabetes care, and we recommend its promotion and use as a single scale rather than subscales as originally proposed.