Protocol for a Delphi consensus study to select indicators of high-quality general practice to achieve Quality Equity and Systems Transformation in Primary Health Care (QUEST-PHC) in Australia.

BACKGROUND: High-quality general practice has been demonstrated to provide cost-effective, equitable health care and improve health outcomes. Yet there is currently not a set of agreed comprehensive indicators in Australia. We have developed 79 evidence-based indicators and their corresponding 129 measures of high-quality general practice. This study aims to achieve consensus on relevant and feasible indicators and measures for the Australian context. METHODS: This Delphi consensus study, approved by WSU Human Research Ethics Committee, consists of three rounds of online survey with general practice experts including general practitioners, practice nurses and primary health network staff. The identified indicators and measures are grouped under an attribute framework aligned with the Quadruple Aim, and further grouped under structures, processes and outcomes according to the Donabedian framework. Participants will rate each indicator and measure for relevance and feasibility, and provide comments and recommendations of additional indicators or measures. In the last round, participants will also be asked their views on the implementation of a quality indicator tool. Each indicator and measure will require ≥70% agreement in both relevance and feasibility to achieve consensus. Aggregated ratings will be statistically analysed for response rates, level of agreement, medians, interquartile ranges and group rankings. Qualitative responses will be analysed thematically using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. DISCUSSION: This protocol will add to the current knowledge of the translation of performance guidelines into quality practice across complex clinical settings and in a variety of different contexts in Australian general practice. The Delphi technique is appropriate to develop consensus between the diverse experts because of its ability to offer anonymity to other participants and minimise bias. Findings will contribute to the design of an assessment tool of high-quality general practice that would enable future primary health care reforms in Australia.

Economic evaluation of the Midwifery Initiated Oral Health-Dental Service programme in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Midwifery Initiated Oral Health-Dental Service (MIOH-DS) designed to improve oral health of pregnant Australian women. Previous efficacy and process evaluations of MIOH-DS showed positive outcomes and improvements across various measures. DESIGN AND SETTING: The evaluation used a cost-utility model based on the initial study design of the MIOH-DS trial in Sydney, Australia from the perspective of public healthcare provider for a duration of 3 months to 4 years. PARTICIPANTS: Data were sourced from pregnant women (n=638), midwives (n=17) and dentists (n=3) involved in the MIOH trial and long-term follow-up. COST MEASURES: Data included in analysis were the cost of the time required by midwives and dentists to deliver the intervention and the cost of dental treatment provided. Costs were measured using data on utilisation and unit price of intervention components and obtained from a micro-costing approach. OUTCOME MEASURES: Utility was measured as the number of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) from health-benefit components of the intervention. Three cost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken using different comparators, thresholds and time scenarios. RESULTS: Compared with current practice, midwives only intervention meets the Australian threshold (A$50 000) of being cost-effective. The midwives and accessible/affordable dentists joint intervention was only 'cost-effective' in 6 months or beyond scenarios. When the midwife only intervention is the comparator, the midwife/dentist programme was 'cost-effective' in all scenarios except at 3 months scenario. CONCLUSIONS: The midwives' only intervention providing oral health education, assessment and referral to existing dental services was cost-effective, and represents a low cost intervention. Midwives' and dentists' combined interventions were cost-effective when the benefits were considered over longer periods. The findings highlight short and long term economic benefits of the programme and support the need for policymakers to consider adding an oral health component into antenatal care Australia wide. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12612001271897; Post-results.