The Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT) process for organisational improvement in primary care: application by Australian Primary Health Networks.

The Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT) is an organisational performance improvement tool recently implemented by two Primary Health Networks (PHNs). This study explored barriers and facilitators to implementing the PC-PIT process at scale, from the initial introduction of the tool to completion of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles with general practices. Using a qualitative design, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 PHN staff to seek feedback on the delivery of the PC-PIT to general practices. Interview results were analysed using a grounded theory approach. The identification of barriers such as difficulty engaging practices and lack of report sharing with the PHNs will help streamline future implementation. The PC-PIT was highly compatible with existing quality improvement programs and offers enhanced opportunity to support capacity building and implementation of the Health Care Home model.

What can pharmacists do in general practice? A pilot trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Non-dispensing pharmacists are being suggested as a useful addition to the workforce in general practice. The aim of this study was to describe the activities of three general practice pharmacists over six months in a pilot trial. METHOD: Three general practices integrated a part-time (15.2-16 hours per week) non-dispensing pharmacist to be employed according to their individual skillset and local workplace needs. Each general practice pharmacist maintained a daily activity diary, which was subsequently analysed. RESULTS: The general practice pharmacists' activities were categorised as quality of practice (37%), administration (34%), medication review (19%) and patient education (11%). Within the quality of practice category, most time was spent conducting clinical audits (47%). Over the course of the six months, time spent on administration decreased, while time communicating with general practitioners (GPs) on clinical issues increased. DISCUSSION: The general practice pharmacists conducted a range of predominantly clinically related activities involving their expertise in the quality use of medications. Involvement in clinical activities to support GPs increased with time working in the practice. Randomised controlled trials are required to collect clinical outcomes and determine which activities conducted by pharmacists are most beneficial to Australian patients and GPs.

Stakeholder perspectives about general practice pharmacists in the Australian Capital Territory: a qualitative pilot study.

Previous studies have found that integrating non-dispensing pharmacists in general practice may improve patient safety, improve patient outcomes, deliver health system efficiencies and generate savings. However, the employment of pharmacists in general practice is not common in Australia. A naturalistic study was conducted in the Australian Capital Territory with three general practices, each employing a part-time pharmacist for 12 months. This study reports on stakeholder perspectives of the benefits, barriers and enablers for integrating pharmacists into general practice. Patients, practice staff and community pharmacists that had interacted with a practice pharmacist were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. Patient questionnaire respondents (n=44) reported that a practice pharmacist was beneficial and wanted to see this continue. Practice pharmacists were also perceived beneficial by primary healthcare employees surveyed (n=42). Opinions were further explored by individual semi-structured interviews (n=20). The qualitative data explored five themes: perception of the practice pharmacist, collaboration with doctors, pharmacist roles, sustainability and community pharmacy aspects. Patients welcomed improved understanding about their medication, whereas general practice staff appreciated pharmaceutical advice about patients with chronic conditions. Participants discussed options to fund practice pharmacists longer term, which was identified as the main barrier to widespread roll out.

Following the funding trail: financing, nurses and teamwork in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: Across the globe the emphasis on roles and responsibilities of primary care teams is under scrutiny. This paper begins with a review of general practice financing in Australia, and how nurses are currently funded. We then examine the influence on funding structures on the role of the nurse. We set out three dilemmas for policy-makers in this area: lack of an evidence base for incentives, possible untoward impacts on interdisciplinary functioning, and the substitution/enhancement debate. METHODS: This three year, multimethod study undertook rapid appraisal of 25 general practices and year-long studies in seven practices where a change was introduced to the role of the nurse. Data collected included interviews with nurses (n = 36), doctors (n = 24), and managers (n = 22), structured observation of the practice nurse (51 hours of observation), and detailed case studies of the change process in the seven year-long studies. RESULTS: Despite specific fee-for-service funding being available, only 6% of nurse activities generated such a fee. Yet the influence of the funding was to focus nurse activity on areas that they perceived were peripheral to their roles within the practice. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional relationships and organisational climate in general practices are highly influential in terms of nursing role and the ability of practices to respond to and utilise funding mechanisms. These factors need to be considered, and the development of optimal teamwork supported in the design and implementation of further initiatives that financially support nursing in general practice.

Enhancing care, improving quality: the six roles of the general practice nurse.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolving roles of practice nurses in Australia and the impact of nurses on general practice function. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multimethod research in two substudies: (a) a rapid appraisal based on observation, photographs of workspaces, and interviews with nurses, doctors and managers in 25 practices in Victoria and New South Wales, conducted between September 2005 and March 2006; and (b) naturalistic longitudinal case studies of introduced change in seven practices in Victoria, NSW, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia, conducted between January 2007 and March 2008. RESULTS: We identified six roles of nurses in general practice: patient carer, organiser, quality controller, problem solver, educator and agent of connectivity. Although the first three roles are appreciated as nursing strengths by both nurses and doctors, doctors tended not to recognise nurses' educator and problem solver roles within the practice. Only 21% of the clinical activities undertaken by nurses were directly funded through Medicare. The role of the nurse as an agent of connectivity, uniting the different workers within the practice organisation, is particularly notable in small and medium-sized practices, and may be a key determinant of organisational resilience. CONCLUSION: Nursing roles may be enhanced through progressive broadening of the scope of the patient care role, fostering the nurse educator role, and addressing barriers to role enhancement, such as organisational inexperience with interprofessional work and lack of a career structure. In adjusting the funding structure for nurses, care should be taken not to create perverse incentives to limit nurses' clinical capacity or undermine the flexibility that gives practice nursing much of its value for nurses and practices.

Contributions from the lifeworld: quality, caring and the general practice nurse.

INTRODUCTION: Enhancing quality and safety in primary health systems is of central importance to funders, practitioners, policy makers and consumers. In this paper we explore the roles of general practice nurses in relation to quality and safety. METHOD: Cross-sectional multimethod study of 25 Australian general practices. Using rapid appraisal we collected data for each practice from interviews with practice nurses, general practitioners and practice managers; photographs of nurse-identified 'key workspaces'; structured observation of nurses for two one-hour sessions; and floor plans. RESULTS: Quality was articulated in two domains, reflecting both external and intrinsic determinants. External determinants included a large number of essentially structural, procedural or regulatory processes, the most marked of these being practice accreditation and occupational health and safety; these corresponded to the Habermasian idea of system. Intrinsic determinants related mostly to nurse perception of their own quality behaviour, and consisted of ways and means to improve or optimise patient care; these correspond to Habermas' notion of the lifeworld. DISCUSSION: Nurses describe a productive tension between the regulatory roles that they play in general practices, and patient-focused care, contrary to Habermas' suggestion that system subsumes lifeworld. Current funding systems often fail to recognise the importance of the particular elements of nurse contributions to quality and safety in primary care.

Policy development to support nursing in Australian general practice: an overview.

There has been a groundswell of change, which has increased the profile and diversity of the role for nurses working in general practice. The need for change has been driven by the requirement to deliver quality, safe health care services in an environment that is complex and increasingly under pressure. Australian government initiatives have played an important part in shaping the role for the general practice nurse and supporting a team based approach to care in general practice. Professional groups have also played a key role in advocating for change and supporting new initiatives to enhance and promote community health and wellbeing.

Time to talk, time to see: changing microeconomies of professional practice among nurses and doctors in Australian general practice.

In Australia, more nurses are entering general practice, and nurses' work is being funded in increasingly complex ways through Medicare. Little research has explored the ways doctors and nurses realign their priorities and activities when working together in general practice. We undertook rapid, intensive multimethod studies of 25 general practices to explore the ways in which the labour of nurses and doctors was structured, and the implicit decisions made by both professions about the values placed on different ways of working and on their time. Data collected included photographs, floor-plans, interviews with 37 nurses, 24 doctors and 22 practice managers, and 50 hours of structured observation. Nursing time was constructed by both nurses and doctors as being fluid and non-contingent; they were regarded as being 'available' to patients in a way that doctors were not. Compared to medical time, nursing time could be disposed more flexibly, underpinning a valorized attribute of nursing: deep clinical and personal contact with patients. The location of practice nurses' desks in areas of traffic, such as administrative stations, or in the treatment room, underpinned this valuable unstructured contact with patients. Changes to the practice nurse role through direct fee-for-service items for nurses may lead to greater congruence between the microeconomies of nursing and medicine in general practice. In a time of pressure upon a primary care workforce, this is likely to lead to more independent clinical work by nurses, but may also lead to a decrease in flexible contact with patients.