Implementing patient decision aids into general practice clinical decision support systems: Feasibility study in cardiovascular disease prevention.

Objective: Patient decision aids (DA) facilitate shared decision making, but implementation remains a challenge. This study tested the feasibility of integrating a cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention DA into general practice software. Methods: We developed a desktop computer application (app) to auto-populate a CVD prevention DA from general practice medical records. 4 practices received monthly practice reports from July-Nov 2021, and 2 practices use the app with limited engagement. CVD risk assessment data and app use were monitored. Results: The proportion of eligible patients with complete CVD risk assessment data ranged from 59 to 94%. Monthly app use ranged from 0 to 285 sessions by 13 individual practice staff including GPs and nurses, with staff using the app an average of 67 sessions during the study period. High users in the 5-month study period continued to use the app for 10 months. Low use was attributed to reduced staff capacity during COVID-19 and technical issues. Conclusion: High users sustained interest in the app, but additional strategies are required for low users. The study will inform implementation plans for new guidelines. Innovation: This study showed it is feasible to integrate patient decision aids with Australian general practice software, despite the challenges of COVID-19 at the time of the study.

Telehealth's future in Australian primary health care: a qualitative study exploring lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth emerged as a means of safely providing primary healthcare (PHC) consultations. In Australia, changes to telehealth funding led to the reconsideration of the role of telehealth in the ongoing provision of PHC services. AIM: To investigate GPs', registered nurses' (RNs), nurse practitioners' (NPs), and allied health (AH) clinicians perceptions of the sustainability of telehealth in PHC post-pandemic. DESIGN & SETTING: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 33 purposively selected clinicians, including GPs (n = 13), RNs (n = 5), NPs (n = 9), and AH clinicians (n = 6) working in PHC settings across Australia. Participants were drawn from responders to a national survey of PHC providers (n = 217). METHOD: The thematic analysis approach reported by Braun and Clarke was used to analyse the interview data. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed that the perception of providers was represented by the following two themes: lessons learnt; and the sustainability of telehealth. Lessons learnt included the need for rapid adaptation to telehealth, use of technology, and the pandemic being a catalyst for long-term change. The sustainability of telehealth in PHC comprised four subthemes around challenges: the funding model, maintaining patient and provider safety, hybrid service models, and access to support. CONCLUSION: Providers required resilience and flexibility to adapt to telehealth. Funding models must reward providers from an outcome focus, rather than placing limits on telehealth's use. Hybrid approaches to service delivery will best meet the needs of the community but must be accompanied by support and education for PHC professionals.

Telehealth use in Australian primary healthcare during COVID-19: a cross-sectional descriptive survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate Australian primary healthcare professionals' experiences of the rapid upscaling of telehealth during COVID-19. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Two hundred and seventeen general practitioners, nurses and allied health professionals employed in primary healthcare settings across Australia were recruited via social media and professional organisations. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated between December 2020 and March 2021. The survey comprised items about individual demographics, experiences of delivering telehealth consultations, perceived quality of telehealth consultations and future perceptions of telehealth. RESULTS: Telephone was the most widely used method of providing telehealth, with less than 50% of participants using a combination of telephone and video. Key barriers to telehealth use related to the inability to undertake physical examination or physical intervention. Telehealth was perceived to improve access to healthcare for some vulnerable groups and those living in rural settings, but reduced access for people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Quality of telehealth care was considered mostly or somewhat the same as care provided face-to-face, with actual or perceived negative outcomes related to missed or delayed diagnosis. Overwhelmingly, participants wanted telehealth to continue with guaranteed ongoing funding. Some 43.7% of participants identified the need to further improve telehealth models of care. CONCLUSION: The rapid shift to telehealth has facilitated ongoing care during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, further work is required to better understand how telehealth can be best harnessed to add value to service delivery in usual care.

Post-COVID-19 syndrome/condition or long COVID: Persistent illness after acute SARS CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10 million Australians have had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The waves of infection in the population have been succeeded by smaller waves of people affected by persistent illness following acute infection. Post-COVID-19 symptoms may extend for months following infection. There is a range of symptoms causing mild to debilitating impairment. OBJECTIVE: This article summarises what is currently understood about the pathophysiology, risk factors, symptoms and how to approach both the assessment and care of people with post-COVID-19 sequelae. DISCUSSION: Currently recommended is a person-centred approach from a multidisciplinary team, with general practitioners centrally coordinating care. As the understanding of post-acute COVID-19 is evolving, regularly updated or 'living guidelines' will be crucial for those affected to be provided with best care within the health system.

Evaluating telehealth lifestyle therapy versus telehealth psychotherapy for reducing depression in adults with COVID-19 related distress: The curbing anxiety and depression using lifestyle medicine (CALM) randomised non-inferiority trial protocol

Background: There is increasing recognition of the substantial burden of mental health disorders at an individual and population level, including consequent demand on mental health services. Lifestyle-based mental healthcare offers an additional approach to existing services with potential to help alleviate system burden. Despite the latest Royal Australian New Zealand College of Psychiatrists guidelines recommending that lifestyle is a 'first-line', 'non-negotiable' treatment for mood disorders, few such programs exist within clinical practice. Additionally, there are limited data to determine whether lifestyle approaches are equivalent to established treatments. Using an individually randomised group treatment design, we aim to address this gap by evaluating an integrated lifestyle program (CALM) compared to an established therapy (psychotherapy), both delivered via telehealth. It is hypothesised that the CALM program will not be inferior to psychotherapy with respect to depressive symptoms at 8 weeks. Methods: The study is being conducted in partnership with Barwon Health's Mental Health, Drugs & Alcohol Service (Geelong, Victoria), from which 184 participants from its service and surrounding regions are being recruited. Eligible participants with elevated psychological distress are being randomised to CALM or psychotherapy. Each takes a trans-diagnostic approach, and comprises four weekly (weeks 1-4) and two fortnightly (weeks 6 and 8) 90-min, group-based sessions delivered via Zoom (digital video conferencing platform). CALM focuses on enhancing knowledge, behavioural skills and support for improving dietary and physical activity behaviours, delivered by an Accredited Exercise Physiologist and Accredited Practising Dietitian. Psychotherapy uses cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by a Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist, and Provisional Psychologist. Data collection occurs at baseline and 8 weeks. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms (assessed via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) at 8 weeks. Societal and healthcare costs will be estimated to determine the cost-effectiveness of the CALM program. A process evaluation will determine its reach, adoption, implementation and maintenance. Discussion: If the CALM program is non-inferior to psychotherapy, this study will provide the first evidence to support lifestyle-based mental healthcare as an additional care model to support individuals experiencing psychological distress. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Patient-centred care during the COVID-19 pandemic

THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION defines patient-centred care (PCC) as care that is respectful and responsive to the needs and wishes of patients.1 There are many reported benefits of PCC, including improved healthcare outcomes,2-5 enhanced relationships between providers and patients4 and enhanced patient satisfaction.2-6 There is a clear need to explore the processes and implementation of PCC because of its impact on patient experience, providers and organisations, and its long-standing emphasis within healthcare policy, such as the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards7 in Australia. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about sweeping changes to healthcare systems across the world, including in Australia, where physical distancing regulations and public health orders affected the availability of general practice staff and influenced the way patients accessed and interacted with general practice services.8 Initially, fewer patients attended general practice services for routine care.89 Then, general practices were called on to administer COVID-19 vaccinations to a significant proportion of the national population. Published in 2021, a Delphi study involving 114 healthcare experts, managers, clinicians and patients expressed there may be new priorities in achieving PCC in the COVID-19 era, including greater emphasis on patient safety, care for vulnerable patients, promotion of self-management and patient autonomy.10 These priorities diverge from what was known about enacting PCC prior to the pandemic, which focused on six key components: 1) understanding the whole person, 2) finding common ground, 3) experiencing time, 4) aiming for positive outcomes, 5) considering the system and collaborating in care and 6) optimising the general practice environment.11 Trustworthy qualitative research is valuable to understand the experiences and perspectives of PCC while capturing the contextual factors of the pandemic to inform higher levels of PCC. The researchers' view is that all knowledge is constructed by the interaction between human beings and their world, with important influence from the social context.14 A qualitative descriptive methodological approach15 will be employed to address the research questions, which are outlined in Table 1.

Patient-centred care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Protocol for a qualitative collective case study by high­performing general practice teams.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way general practice teams interact with patients. This protocol article describes the rationale and design of an exploration of the experiences and perceptions of patient-centred care (PCC) by high-functioning general practice teams in Australia. METHOD: A qualitative descriptive approach and collective case study method will be used. Potential participants are individuals representing a high-functioning general practice team, who will be asked to participate in a semi-structured interview. Eligible general practice clinics have received a 'Practice of the Year' award or commendation from The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners or Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited. Interview data will be analysed thematically, with constant comparison and meta-synthesis. DISCUSSION: Collective case study research is valuable because it enables rich exploration of PCC within the context of the pandemic. Rapid research on PCC may highlight new approaches towards the delivery of PCC.

The impact of COVID-19 on Australian cancer screening and strategies to mitigate ongoing disruption of screening services.

At-home screening and risk stratification are strategies that can be employed at times of disruption to maintain adequate levels of cancer prevention and early detection.

The ATHENA COVID-19 Study: Cohort profile and first findings for people diagnosed with COVID-19 in Queensland, 1 January to 31 December 2020.

BACKGROUND: To date, there are limited Australian data on characteristics of people diagnosed with COVID-19 and on how these characteristics relate to outcomes. The ATHENA COVID-19 Study was established to describe health outcomes and investigate predictors of outcomes for all people diagnosed with COVID-19 in Queensland by linking COVID-19 notification, hospital, general practice and death registry data. This paper reports on the establishment and first findings for the ATHENA COVID-19 Study. METHODS: Part 1 of the ATHENA COVID-19 Study used Notifiable Conditions System data from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020, linked to: Emergency Department Collection data for the same period; Queensland Health Admitted Patient Data Collections (from 1 January 2010 to 30 January 2021); and Deaths Registrations data (from 1 January 2020 to 17 January 2021). RESULTS: To 31 December 2020, a total of 1,254 people had been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection in Queensland: half were female (49.8%); two-thirds (67.7%) were aged 20-59 years; and there was an over-representation of people living in less-disadvantaged areas. More than half of people diagnosed (57.6%) presented to an ED; 21.2% were admitted to hospital as an inpatient (median length of stay 11 days); 1.4% were admitted to an intensive care unit (82.4% of these required ventilation); and there were six deaths. Analysis of factors associated with these outcomes was limited due to small case numbers: people living in less-disadvantaged areas had a lower risk of being admitted to hospital (test for trend, p < 0.001), while those living in more remote areas were less likely than people living in major cities to present to an ED (test for trend: p=0.007), which may reflect differential health care access rather than health outcomes per se. Increasing age (test for trend, p < 0.001) and being a current/recent smoker (age-sex-adjusted relative risk: 1.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.00, 2.61) were associated with a higher risk of being admitted to hospital. CONCLUSION: Despite uncertainty in our estimates due to small numbers, our findings are consistent with what is known about COVID-19. Our findings reinforce the value of linking multiple data sources to enhance reporting of outcomes for people diagnosed with COVID-19 and provide a platform for longer term follow-up.