'Catching chlamydia': combining cash incentives and community pharmacy access for increased chlamydia screening, the view of young people.

In Australia and elsewhere, chlamydia screening rates for those aged between 16 and 30 years continue to be low. Innovative, age-appropriate approaches are necessary to increase chlamydia screening among this target group to prevent short- and long-term consequences of the infection such as pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. Studies have demonstrated that offering chlamydia screening in community pharmacies may be a useful adjunct to current screening services. Approximately 90% of Australians visit a pharmacy at least once a year. Chlamydia screening and education in community pharmacies with remuneration may provide another option for opportunistic testing as part of a national chlamydia screening scheme. Compensation is an accepted practice in the field of research and has been demonstrated to improve adherence to health promotion activities. In 2011, a cross-sectional study of community pharmacy-based chlamydia screening offered in conjunction with an A$10 cash incentive to participate was conducted in the Australian Capital Territory. As part of this study young people were asked about their experience of, and views about, pharmacy-based chlamydia screening. The views of consented participants were collected using the one-page questionnaire consisting of 10 closed questions and one open-ended question. Participants completed the questionnaire when they returned their urine sample and before being given the cash incentive. Overall participants were highly satisfied with the pharmacy-based chlamydia screening service. Over 60% of questionnaire respondents felt that the payment did affect their decision to have the chlamydia test, and 23% stated that it made no difference. Young people reported that pharmacy-based screening is acceptable and convenient. Accessibility and the small cash incentive played significant roles in increasing participation.

Nurse practitioners in aged care: documentary analysis of successful project proposals.

Meeting the primary health care needs of an aging population is an increasing challenge for many Western nations. In Australia, the federal government introduced a program to develop, test, and evaluate nurse practitioner models in aged care settings. In this article, we present a documentary analysis of 32 project proposals awarded funding under the Nurse Practitioner-Aged Care Models of Practice Program. Successfully funded models were diverse and were operated by a range of organizations across Australia. We identified three key priorities as underlying the proposed models: "The right care," "in the right place," and "at the right time." In this article, we explore how these priorities were presented by different applicants in different ways. Through the presentation of their models, the program's applicants identified and proposed to address current gaps in health services. Applicants contrasted their proposed models with available services to create persuasive and competitive applications for funding.

Can pharmacy assistants play a greater role in public health programs in community pharmacies? Lessons from a chlamydia screening study in Canberra, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the engagement of pharmacy assistants (PA) in public health service provision. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of PA participating in a study to determine whether a cash reward, offered to consumers and pharmacy businesses, increased participation in community pharmacy-based chlamydia screening. METHODS: PA experience of the study education and training package, participant recruitment and conducting screening (providing information about chlamydia, specimen collection and handling urine samples) were evaluated using knowledge assessment, a questionnaire and focus groups. RESULTS: Twenty PA participated in the study: 15 (75%) completed all education and training components, 20 (100%) completed the questionnaire and 10 (50%) attended a focus group. PA rated all education and training components as effective (mean visual analog scale scores >8.5). Most PA (13/18, 72.2%) did not support/were unsure about continuing the program, citing the 25% repeat testing rate (presumed to relate to the cash reward) and privacy/confidentiality issues as reasons. Qualitative analysis suggested that minimizing repeat testing, improved workload management and recognition of, and remuneration for, education and training would make this model more acceptable to PA. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study support the assertion that PA can play a significant role in public health initiatives.

Community pharmacy and cash reward: a winning combination for chlamydia screening?

OBJECTIVES: To date, the uptake of chlamydia screening in community pharmacies has been limited. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to determine if a cash reward, offered to both the provider and the consumer of chlamydia screening, increased the uptake of screening in community pharmacies. METHODS: During 4 weeks in 2011, chlamydia screening and education were offered in four city and two suburban pharmacies to people aged 16-30 years. Those who provided a urine sample for testing, contact details, and completed a brief questionnaire were rewarded with $A10. Positive participants, and their nominated contacts, were offered treatment. RESULTS: Over a period of 751.5 h, 979 testing kits were requested, and 900 (93%) urine samples returned. Using probabilistic linkage methods, we determined that 671/900 (75%) urine samples were from unique individuals. 0.9 unique samples were obtained/hour of screening, 63% of which were provided by men. 19/671 (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7% to 4.4%) people tested positive, 5.2% (95% CI 2.8% to 8.8%) of women, and 1.4% (1.4 0.5 to 3.1) of men. 11/19 (58%) people were contacted and treated-two for suspected pelvic inflammatory disease. CONCLUSIONS: Providing a cash reward to encourage chlamydia screening in community pharmacies resulted in greater participation rates than previously reported pharmacy-based studies, particularly among men. Easily implemented mechanisms to reduce inappropriate repeat screening, incorrect contact details and effects on pharmacy work flow may enhance the efficiency of this approach.

Stakeholder perceptions of a nurse led walk-in centre.

BACKGROUND: As many countries face primary care medical workforce shortages and find it difficult to provide timely and affordable care they seek to find new ways of delivering first point of contact health care through developing new service models. In common with other areas of rural and regional Australia, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is currently experiencing a general practitioner (GP) workforce shortage which impacts significantly on the ability of patients to access GP led primary care services. The introduction of a nurse led primary care Walk-in Centre in the ACT aimed to fulfill an unmet health care need in the community and meet projected demand for health care services as well as relieve pressure on the hospital system. Stakeholders have the potential to influence health service planning and policy, to advise on the potential of services to meet population health needs and to assess how acceptable health service innovation is to key stakeholder groups. This study aimed to ascertain the views of key stakeholders about the Walk-in Centre. METHODS: Stakeholders were purposively selected through the identification of individuals and organisations which had organisational or professional contact with the Walk-in Centre. Semi structured interviews around key themes were conducted with seventeen stakeholders. RESULTS: Stakeholders were generally supportive of the Walk-in Centre but identified key areas which they considered needed to be addressed. These included the service's systems, full utilisation of the nurse practitioner role and adequate education and training. It was also suggested that a doctor could be available to the Centre as a source of referral for patients who fall outside the nurses' scope of practice. The location of the Centre was seen to impact on patient flows to the Emergency Department. CONCLUSION: Nurse led Walk-in Centres are one response to addressing primary health care medical workforce shortages. Whilst some stakeholders have reservations about the model others are supportive and see the potential the model has to provide accessible primary health care. Any further developments of nurse-led Walk-in Centres need to take into account the views of key stakeholders so as to ensure that the model is acceptable and sustainable.

A national survey of general practitioners' experiences of patient-initiated aggression in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of patient-initiated aggression toward general practitioners in Australia. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional national survey, conducted during February-May 2010, of 3090 GPs in 19 Divisions of General Practice, purposively sampled to represent urban, rural and remote areas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of GPs experiencing patient-initiated aggression. RESULTS: Eight-hundred and four GPs returned completed surveys (response rate, 26.3%). In the previous 12 months, 58% of GPs had experienced verbal abuse and 18% had experienced property damage or theft. Very few GPs had experienced physical abuse (6%), stalking (4%), sexual harassment (6%) or sexual assault (0.1%). After controlling for other demographic variables, GPs with fewer years of experience (P = 0.003), or who worked full-time or in larger practices (both P = 0.03) experienced significantly more verbal abuse than their counterparts, and GPs who worked full-time (P = 0.004) or in metropolitan areas (P = 0.01) experienced significantly more property damage or theft. Female GPs experienced significantly more sexual harassment than male GPs (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first national evidence of the prevalence of patient aggression toward GPs in Australia, which could inform the development of policies and guidelines that aim to reduce the prevalence of patient aggression toward GPs.

Implementing pay-for-performance in Australian primary care: lessons from the United Kingdom and the United States.

We identify key lessons learned from the international experience of pay-for-performance and use them to formulate questions for Australia to consider before such a scheme is introduced. Discussion of lessons learned is based on a narrative review of the literature. We examined international evidence on factors to consider when designing pay-for-performance schemes, and the impact of these schemes on primary care practitioner behaviour and on primary care funding. Pay-for-performance schemes evolve over time, and usually involve several complex interventions including accreditation, education, quality improvement programs, investment in information technology and data collection systems, professional support and regional structures. These are all necessary conditions for linking financial incentives to quality of care. There is a strong argument for changing the existing service incentive payments program and investing the resources into revised outcome payments that provide rewards for annual improvements in numbers of patients receiving completed cycles of care. If pay-for-performance is to be introduced in Australia, several key lessons should be learned from the experiences of other countries. Pay-for-performance should be used as part of a wider strategy for quality improvement; it should not be seen as a panacea. Pay-for-performance should be used to drive quality improvement, not simply to reward those who are already providing high-quality care.

Better than nothing? Patient-delivered partner therapy and partner notification for chlamydia: the views of Australian general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Genital chlamydia is the most commonly notified sexually transmissible infection (STI) in Australia and worldwide and can have serious reproductive health outcomes. Partner notification, testing and treatment are important facets of chlamydia control. Traditional methods of partner notification are not reaching enough partners to effectively control transmission of chlamydia. Patient-delivered partner therapy (PDPT) has been shown to improve the treatment of sexual partners. In Australia, General Practitioners (GPs) are responsible for the bulk of chlamydia testing, diagnosis, treatment and follow up. This study aimed to determine the views and practices of Australian general practitioners (GPs) in relation to partner notification and PDPT for chlamydia and explored GPs' perceptions of their patients' barriers to notifying partners of a chlamydia diagnosis. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 general practitioners (GPs) from rural, regional and urban Australia from November 2006 to March 2007. Topics covered: GPs' current practice and views about partner notification, perceived barriers and useful supports, previous use of and views regarding PDPT.Transcripts were imported into NVivo7 and subjected to thematic analysis. Data saturation was reached after 32 interviews had been completed. RESULTS: Perceived barriers to patients telling partners (patient referral) included: stigma; age and cultural background; casual or long-term relationship, ongoing relationship or not. Barriers to GPs undertaking partner notification (provider referral) included: lack of time and staff; lack of contact details; uncertainty about the legality of contacting partners and whether this constitutes breach of patient confidentiality; and feeling both personally uncomfortable and inadequately trained to contact someone who is not their patient. GPs were divided on the use of PDPT--many felt concerned that it is not best clinical practice but many also felt that it is better than nothing.GPs identified the following factors which they considered would facilitate partner notification: clear clinical guidelines; a legal framework around partner notification; a formal chlamydia screening program; financial incentives; education and practical support for health professionals, and raising awareness of chlamydia in the community, in particular amongst young people. CONCLUSIONS: GPs reported some partners do not seek medical treatment even after they are notified of being a sexual contact of a patient with chlamydia. More routine use of PDPT may help address this issue however GPs in this study had negative attitudes to the use of PDPT. Appropriate guidelines and legislation may make the use of PDPT more acceptable to Australian GPs.

Telling partners about chlamydia: how acceptable are the new technologies?

BACKGROUND: Partner notification is accepted as a vital component in the control of chlamydia. However, in reality, many sexual partners of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia are never informed of their risk. The newer technologies of email and SMS have been used as a means of improving partner notification rates. This study explored the use and acceptability of different partner notification methods to help inform the development of strategies and resources to increase the number of partners notified. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 40 people who were recently diagnosed with chlamydia from three sexual health centres and two general practices across three Australian jurisdictions. RESULTS: Most participants chose to contact their partners either in person (56%) or by phone (44%). Only 17% chose email or SMS. Participants viewed face-to-face as the "gold standard" in partner notification because it demonstrated caring, respect and courage. Telephone contact, while considered insensitive by some, was often valued because it was quick, convenient and less confronting. Email was often seen as less personal while SMS was generally considered the least acceptable method for telling partners. There was also concern that emails and SMS could be misunderstood, not taken seriously or shown to others. Despite these, email and SMS were seen to be appropriate and useful in some circumstances. Letters, both from the patients or from their doctor, were viewed more favourably but were seldom used. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that many people diagnosed with chlamydia are reluctant to use the new technologies for partner notification, except in specific circumstances, and our efforts in developing partner notification resources may best be focused on giving patients the skills and confidence for personal interaction.

Experiences and outcomes of partner notification among men and women recently diagnosed with Chlamydia and their views on innovative resources aimed at improving notification rates.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the partner notification experiences of individuals diagnosed with chlamydia and to determine what supports might best assist them. GOAL: To determine what supports might best assist chlamydia infected individuals to notify their partners. STUDY DESIGN: A telephone survey was undertaken with men and women recently diagnosed with chlamydia across 3 Australian jurisdictions between August 2007 and January 2008. RESULTS: Of the 286 individuals who agreed to be contacted about the study, 202 (71%) completed the survey. Twenty-three percent (333/1458) of recent partners were notified: men who had sex with men (MSM) notified 15% (133/880) of their partners, heterosexual men 31% (114/370), and women 46% (86/188) of their partners (P < 0.001). Overall, 84% (169/202) of individuals notified at least one partner. The main reasons for informing partners were out of concern for them (44%) or because it was considered "the right thing to do" (37%). The preferred methods for contacting partners were telephone (52%) and face-to-face (30%). E-mail (8%) and short message service (SMS) (11%) were less commonly used; however, if offered a website with anonymous e-mail and SMS services, nearly half of individuals indicated they would find this useful. Of those who had not informed all partners with known contact details (n = 94), 34% reported that if web-based tools were available they would have contacted more partners. Over half of participants would like to have been given antibiotics to give to their partner. CONCLUSION: The availability of tailored resources may assist in improving partner notification for chlamydia.

Innovative resources could help improve partner notification for chlamydia in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine practices of general practitioners' (GPs) in relation to partner notification for chlamydia and identify the supports they would find most useful to assist them. GOAL: To identify innovative resources that could improve partner notification for chlamydia in primary care. STUDY DESIGN: A postal survey was undertaken that involved GPs from several jurisdictions across Australia between August and December 2007. GPs were randomly selected from a national database. RESULTS: Of 521 eligible GPs, 234 (45%) returned a completed questionnaire. Ninety-five percent (n = 223) felt that it was their role to discuss partner notification with patients diagnosed with chlamydia; however, only 45% (105/232) were sure how best to assist their patients with this. Considerable variation was shown in the way partner notification was undertaken, including how far back in time GPs recommended contacting partners. GPs considered a wide range of possible resources useful, including a website supporting patients (90%), information sheets generated by practice software when chlamydia is diagnosed (90%), printed information packs for patients (85%), a website designed to assist GPs (80%), and referral to these websites via positive laboratory results (85%). Forty-three percent currently undertook patient delivered partner therapy for chlamydia. CONCLUSION: GPs want and need greater guidance and resources to assist them with partner notification for chlamydia. Resources utilizing the internet and practice software and mechanisms where GPs are automatically directed to these when chlamydia is diagnosed have wide appeal and the potential to improve the effectiveness of partner notification for chlamydia.

Practice nursing in Australia: A review of education and career pathways.

BACKGROUND: Nurses in Australia are often not educated in their pre registration years to meet the needs of primary care. Careers in primary care may not be as attractive to nursing graduates as high-tech settings such as intensive or acute care. Yet, it is in primary care that increasingly complex health problems are managed. The Australian government has invested in incentives for general practices to employ practice nurses. However, no policy framework has been developed for practice nursing to support career development and post-registration education and training programs are developed in an ad hoc manner and are not underpinned by core professional competencies. This paper reports on a systematic review undertaken to establish the available evidence on education models and career pathways with a view to enhancing recruitment and retention of practice nurses in primary care in Australia. METHODS: Search terms describing education models, career pathways and policy associated with primary care (practice) nursing were established. These search terms were used to search electronic databases. The search strategy identified 1394 citations of which 408 addressed one or more of the key search terms on policy, education and career pathways. Grey literature from the UK and New Zealand internet sites were sourced and examined. The UK and New Zealand Internet sites were selected because they have well established and advanced developments in education and career pathways for practice nurses.Two reviewers examined titles, abstracts and studies, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreement between the reviewers was resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer. RESULTS: Significant advances have been made in New Zealand and the UK towards strengthening frameworks for primary care nursing education and career pathways. However, in Australia there is no policy at national level prepare nurses to work in primary care sector and no framework for education or career pathways for nurses working in that sector. CONCLUSION: There is a need for national training standards and a process of accreditation for practice nursing in Australia to support the development of a responsive and sustainable nursing workforce in primary care and to provide quality education and career pathways.

What needs to change to increase chlamydia screening in general practice in Australia? The views of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Australia is considering implementing a chlamydia screening program in general practice. The views of general practitioners (GPs) are necessary to inform the design of the program. This paper aimed to investigate Australian GPs' views on how chlamydia screening could work in the Australian context. METHODS: This project used both qualitative interviews and a quantitative questionnaire. GPs were randomly selected from a national database of medical practitioners for both the qualitative and quantitative components. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and a thematic analysis conducted. The results of the interviews were used to design a quantitative postal questionnaire for completion by a larger sample of GPs. Up to three reminders were sent to non-responders. RESULTS: Twenty one GPs completed an interview and 255 completed the postal questionnaire. The results of the postal survey were in strong concordance with those of the interview. GPs identified a number of barriers to increased screening including lack of time, knowledge of GPs and the public about chlamydia, patient embarrassment and support for partner notification. GPs felt strongly that screening would be easier if there was a national program and if the public and GPs had a greater knowledge about chlamydia. Incentive payments and mechanisms for recall and reminders would facilitate screening. Greater support for contact tracing would be important if screening is to increase. CONCLUSION: Chlamydia screening in general practice is acceptable to Australian GPs. If screening is to succeed, policy makers must consider the facilitators identified by GPs.