General practitioners with special interests: An integrative review of their role, impact and potential for the future.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A 'general practitioner with special interest (GPwSI)' refers to a GP who functions as a clinical intermediary between primary, secondary and tertiary care. This study aimed to advance understanding of the role, impact and potential of the GPwSI in Australia. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted. Studies that described the work of the GPwSI or examined how GPwSIs provide services to patients, including context, roles and outcomes, were included. Studies of all designs were analysed thematically using meta-synthesis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine articles were included. Studies showed significant diversity in settings, conditions and roles of GPwSIs; superior patient satisfaction and comparable outcomes to specialists, but a need for greater workforce regulation. DISCUSSION: This review shows the significant potential of both the role and impact of GPwSIs. It provides a warning regarding appropriate training, mentoring and ongoing professional development for GPs and employers adopting this role.

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.

Questionnaires that measure the quality of relationships between patients and primary care providers: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: International guidance on models of care stress the importance of good quality, continuous patient-provider relationships to support high quality and efficient care and hospital avoidance. However, assessing the quality of patient-provider relationships is challenging due to its experiential nature. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review to identify questionnaires previously developed or used to assess the quality of continuous relationships between patients and their provider in primary care. METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and SCOPUS databases were searched for English language studies published between 2009 and 2017. Key terms used identified studies conducted in the primary care setting examining relationships between patients and providers. Studies that focused on the conceptualisation, development, testing or review of a questionnaire, or studies that used a questionnaire for assessing the quality of continuous relationships between patients and providers were eligible. Studies that did not assess quality via a questionnaire, only assessed single aspects of relationships, only assessed single encounters, assessed transitions between settings or assessed relationships using an index were excluded. Information on validity testing of each relevant questionnaire identified from articles was reviewed to inform recommendations for future research and evaluation. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met the eligibility criteria, including 14 unique questionnaires. The questionnaires were diverse in length, scope, focus and level of validity testing. Five questionnaires were considered not feasible for future use due to size and lack of development work. Three questionnaires were considered strongest candidates for use in future work based on being relevant to the topic and primary care setting, freely available in English and not needing additional pilot work prior to use. These three questionnaires were the Care Continuity Across Levels of Care Scale, the Nijmegan Continuity Questionnaire and the Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship Tool. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an overview of 14 unique questionnaires that have been used to assess the quality of continuous relationships between patients and primary care providers. The decision to use one of the questionnaires in future work requires careful consideration, including the scope, length, validation testing, accessibility of the questionnaires and their alignment with the initiative being evaluated.

Successfully implementing a diabetic retinopathy screening service in general practice: What does the evidence tell us?

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that general-practice based screening for diabetic retinopathy significantly improves recording of screening outcomes and follow-up for Australians with type 2 diabetes. In 2016, two Medicare Benefits Schedule item numbers were launched to support screening in general practice. However, there is little evidence-based information to guide practices in successfully implementing screening models for diabetic retinopathy. The objective of this study was to develop an evidence-based framework to guide successful general-practice based screening for diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: Thematic analysis was used to identify and classify recurrent themes from qualitative and observational data gathered from general practices and staff undertaking successful screening for diabetic retinopathy. RESULTS: Seven themes (a combination of enablers and potential risks) were identified as key components of successful screening for diabetic retinopathy in general practice.

What do patients with diabetes and providers think of an innovative Australian model of remote diabetic retinopathy screening? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the commonest cause of preventable blindness in working age populations, but up to 98% of visual loss secondary to DR can be prevented with early detection and treatment. In 2012, an innovative outreach DR screening model was implemented in remote communities in a state of Australia. The aim of this study was to explore the acceptability of this unique DR screening model to patients, health professionals and other key stakeholders. METHODS: This descriptive qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with patients opportunistically recruited whilst attending DR screening, and purposefully selected health care professionals either working within or impacted by the programme. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using NVIVO. An iterative process of thematic analysis was used following the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with fourteen patients with diabetes living in three remote communities and nine health professionals or key stakeholders. Nine key themes emerged during interviews with health professionals, key stakeholders and patients: i) improved patient access to DR screening; ii) efficiency, financial implications and sustainability; iii) quality and safety; iv) multi-disciplinary diabetes care; v) training and education; vi) operational elements of service delivery; vii) communication, information sharing and linkages; viii) coordination and integration of the service and ix) suggested improvements to service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The Remote Outreach DR Screening Service is highly acceptable to patients and health professionals. Challenges have primarily been encountered in communication and coordination of the service and further development in these areas could improve the programme's impact and sustainability in remote communities. The service is applicable to other remote communities nationally and potentially internationally.

On the road to value co-creation in health care: the role of consumers in defining the destination, planning the journey and sharing the drive.

The role of consumers is now extending beyond being passive health care recipients and even active participants in their own care to involvement in innovation and value co-creation in health care - from being "users and choosers" to becoming "makers and shapers" of services. For active dialogue to occur in co-creation, consumers must become equal partners with health care organisations and providers, with the focus on areas of interest to all parties. The use of value co-creation in health care involves embedding the approach across the whole health care system - from the microsystem level to the mesosystem and the entire macrosystem.

Trial of the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool: building organisational performance in Australian general practice and primary health care.

OBJECTIVE: To nationally trial the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT), an organisational performance improvement tool previously co-created with Australian primary care practices to increase their focus on relevant quality improvement (QI) activities. DESIGN: The study was conducted from March to December 2015 with volunteer general practices from a range of Australian primary care settings. We used a mixed-methods approach in two parts. Part 1 involved staff in Australian primary care practices assessing how they perceived their practice met (or did not meet) each of the 13 PC-PIT elements of high-performing practices, using a 1-5 Likert scale. In Part 2, two external raters conducted an independent practice visit to independently and objectively assess the subjective practice assessment from Part 1 against objective indicators for the 13 elements, using the same 1-5 Likert scale. Concordance between the raters was determined by comparing their ratings. In-depth interviews conducted during the independent practice visits explored practice managers' experiences and perceived support and resource needs to undertake organisational improvement in practice. RESULTS: Data were available for 34 general practices participating in Part 1. For Part 2, independent practice visits and the inter-rater comparison were conducted for a purposeful sample of 19 of the 34 practices. Overall concordance between the two raters for each of the assessed elements was excellent. Three practice types across a continuum of higher- to lower-scoring practices were identified, with each using the PC-PIT in a unique way. During the in-depth interviews, practice managers identified benefits of having additional QI tools that relate to the PC-PIT elements. CONCLUSIONS: The PC-PIT is an organisational performance tool that is acceptable, valid and relevant to our range of partners and the end users (general practices). Work is continuing with our partners and end users to embed the PC-PIT in existing organisational improvement programs.

Quality tools and resources to support organisational improvement integral to high-quality primary care: a systematic review of published and grey literature.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify existing online primary care quality improvement tools and resources to support organisational improvement related to the seven elements in the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT), with the identified tools and resources to progress to a Delphi study for further assessment of relevance and utility. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the international published and grey literature. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Embase and PubMed databases were searched in March 2014 for articles published between January 2004 and December 2013. GreyNet International and other relevant websites and repositories were also searched in March-April 2014 for documents dated between 1992 and 2012. STUDY SELECTION: All citations were imported into a bibliographic database. Published and unpublished tools and resources were included in the review if they were in English, related to primary care quality improvement and addressed any of the seven PC-PIT elements of a high-performing practice. Tools and resources that met the eligibility criteria were then evaluated for their accessibility, relevance, utility and comprehensiveness using a four-criteria appraisal framework. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We used a data extraction template to systematically extract information from eligible tools and resources. A content analysis approach was used to explore the tools and resources and collate relevant information: name of the tool or resource, year and country of development, author, name of the organisation that provided access and its URL, accessibility information or problems, overview of each tool or resource and the quality improvement element(s) it addresses. If available, a copy of the tool or resource was downloaded into the bibliographic database, along with supporting evidence (published or unpublished) on its use in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified 53 tools and resources that can potentially be provided as part of a suite of tools and resources to support primary care practices in improving the quality of their practice, to achieve improved health outcomes.

A Delphi study assessing the utility of quality improvement tools and resources in Australian primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relevance and utility of online tools and resources to support organisational performance development in primary care and to complement the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT). DESIGN: A purposively recruited Expert Advisory Panel of 12 end users used a modified Delphi technique to evaluate 53 tools and resources identified through a previously conducted systematic review. The panel comprised six practice managers and six general practitioners who had participated in the PC-PIT pilot study in 2013-2014. Tools and resources were reviewed in three rounds using a standard pre-tested assessment form. Recommendations, scores and reasons for recommending or rejecting each tool or resource were analysed to determine the final suite of tools and resources. The evaluation was conducted from November 2014 to August 2015. RESULTS: Recommended tools and resources scored highly (mean score, 16/20) in Rounds 1 and 2 of review (n = 25). These tools and resources were perceived to be easily used, useful to the practice and supportive of the PC-PIT. Rejected resources scored considerably lower (mean score, 5/20) and were noted to have limitations such as having no value to the practice and poor utility (n = 6). A final review (Round 3) of 28 resources resulted in a suite of 21 to support the elements of the PC-PIT. CONCLUSIONS: This suite of tools and resources offers one approach to supporting the quality improvement initiatives currently in development in primary care reform.

Embracing value co-creation in primary care services research: a framework for success.

Value co-creation redresses a key criticism of researcher-driven approaches to research - that researchers may lack insight into the end users' needs and values across the research journey. Value co-creation creates, in a step-wise way, value with, and for, multiple stakeholders through regular, ongoing interactions leading to innovation, increased productivity and co-created outcomes of value to all parties - thus creating a "win more-win more" environment. The Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) in Building Primary Care Quality, Performance and Sustainability has co-created outcomes of value that have included robust and enduring partnerships, research findings that have value to end users (such as the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool and the best-practice governance framework), an International Implementation Research Network in Primary Care and the International Primary Health Reform Conference. Key lessons learned in applying the strategies of value co-creation have included the recognition that partnership development requires an investment of time and effort to ensure meaningful interactions and enriched end user experiences, that research management systems including governance, leadership and communication also need to be "co-creative", and that openness and understanding is needed to work across different sectors and cultures with flexibility, fairness and transparency being essential to the value co-creation process.

An Innovative Australian Outreach Model of Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in Remote Communities.

Background. Up to 98% of visual loss secondary to diabetic retinopathy (DR) can be prevented with early detection and treatment. Despite this, less than 50% of Australian and American diabetics receive appropriate screening. Diabetic patients living in rural and remote communities are further disadvantaged by limited access to ophthalmology services. Research Design and Methods. DR screening using a nonmydriatic fundal camera was performed as part of a multidisciplinary diabetes service already visiting remote communities. Images were onforwarded to a distant general practitioner who identified and graded retinopathy, with screen-positive patients referred to ophthalmology. This retrospective, descriptive study aims to compare the proportion of remote diabetic patients receiving appropriate DR screening prior to and following implementation of the service. Results. Of the 141 patients in 11 communities who underwent DR screening, 16.3% had received appropriate DR screening prior to the implementation of the service. In addition, 36.2% of patients had never been screened. Following the introduction of the service, 66.3% of patients underwent appropriate DR screening (p = 0.00025). Conclusion. This innovative model has greatly improved accessibility to DR screening in remote communities, thereby reducing preventable blindness. It provides a holistic, locally appropriate diabetes service and utilises existing infrastructure and health workforce more efficiently.

Diabetic Retinopathy Screening and Monitoring of Early Stage Disease in Australian General Practice: Tackling Preventable Blindness within a Chronic Care Model.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the leading cause of preventable blindness in Australia. Up to 50% of people with proliferative DR who do not receive timely treatment will become legally blind within five years. Innovative and accessible screening, involving a variety of primary care providers, will become increasingly important if patients with diabetes are to receive optimal eye care. METHOD: An open controlled trial design was used. Five intervention practices in urban, regional, and rural Australia partnered with ophthalmologists via telehealth undertook DR screening and monitoring of type 2 diabetes patients and were compared with control practices undertaking usual care 2011-2014. RESULTS: Recorded screening rates were 100% across intervention practices, compared with 22-53% in control practices. 31/577 (5%) of patients in the control practices were diagnosed with mild-moderate DR, of whom 9 (29%) had appropriate follow-up recorded. This was compared with 39/447 (9%) of patients in the intervention group, of whom 37 (95%) had appropriate follow-up recorded. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: General practice-based DR screening via Annual Cycle of Care arrangements is effective across differing practice locations. It offers improved recording of screening outcomes for Australians with type 2 diabetes and better follow-up of those with screen abnormalities.

Key elements of high-quality practice organisation in primary health care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify elements that are integral to high-quality practice and determine considerations relating to high-quality practice organisation in primary care. STUDY DESIGN: A narrative systematic review of published and grey literature. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Emerald Insight, PsycInfo, the Primary Health Care Research and Information Service website, Google Scholar) were searched in November 2013 and used to identify articles published in English from 2002 to 2013. Reference lists of included articles were searched for relevant unpublished articles and reports. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were configured at the study level to allow for the inclusion of findings from a broad range of study types. Ten elements were most often included in the existing organisational assessment tools. A further three elements were identified from an inductive thematic analysis of descriptive articles, and were noted as important considerations in effective quality improvement in primary care settings. CONCLUSION: Although there are some validated tools available to primary care that identify and build quality, most are single-strategy approaches developed outside health care settings. There are currently no validated organisational improvement tools, designed specifically for primary health care, which combine all elements of practice improvement and whose use does not require extensive external facilitation.

Development and pilot study of the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT): an innovative approach.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the usability and validity of the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT), a practice performance improvement tool based on 13 key elements identified by a systematic review. It was co-created with a range of partners and designed specifically for primary health care. DESIGN: This pilot study examined the PC-PIT using a formative assessment framework and mixed-methods research design. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Six high-functioning general practices in Queensland, Australia, between February and July 2013. A total of 28 staff participated - 10 general practitioners, six practice or community nurses, 12 administrators (four practice managers; one business manager and eight reception or general administrative staff). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Readability, content validity and staff perceptions of the PC-PIT. RESULTS: The PC-PIT offers an appropriate and acceptable approach to internal quality improvement in general practice. Quantitative assessment scores and qualitative data from all staff identified two areas in which the PC-PIT required modification: a reduction in the indicative reading age, and simplification of governance-related terms and concepts. CONCLUSION: The PC-PIT provides an innovative approach to address the complexity of organisational improvement in general practice and primary health care. This initial validation will be used to develop a suite of supporting, high-quality and free-to-access resources to enhance the use of the PC-PIT in general practice. Based on these findings, a national trial is now underway.

Triggering change in diabetes care delivery in general practice: a qualitative evaluation approach using the clinical microsystem framework.

BACKGROUND: In 2008, the Sunshine Coast Division of General Practice (SCDGP) in Queensland, Australia initiated a highly successful Improved Diabetes Management (IDM) program with general practices in a regional area. The IDM program was evaluated against the 10 elements of a high functioning clinical microsystem framework as identified by Nelson et al. (2007) in order to determine key factors contributing to the successful adoption and uptake of the program in participating general practices. METHODS: The evaluation focussed on in-depth key informant interviews with 10 SCDGP staff and general practitioners (GPs) involved in the IDM program. A thematic analysis was undertaken and common emergent themes were reviewed against the 10 elements of high performing clinical microsystem. RESULTS: While all aspects of the clinical microsystem approach appeared effective in the design, implementation and adoption of the IDM program, several characteristics were crucial. The identification of champions of change in both the division and participating practices, the celebration of positive achievements and the use 'real data' from practices to demonstrate improved health outcomes for patients from the practice were instrumental in motivating participating GPs to both implement and sustain changes in their diabetes care delivery. CONCLUSION: In designing and redesigning health care, the clinical microsystems approach offers a pathway for the effective uptake of innovation in Australian primary health care; a means of integrating structure, process and outcomes of a care framework for reviewing improvements in the health care delivery process and could lead to improvements in patient health outcomes.

Patients' experiences of referral for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes for colorectal cancer patients vary significantly. Compared to other countries, Australia has a good record with patient outcomes, yet there is little information available on the referral pathway. This paper explores the views of Australian patients and their experiences of referral for colorectal cancer treatment following diagnosis; the aim was to improve our understanding of the referral pathway and guide the development of future interventions. METHODS: A purposive sampling strategy was used, recruiting 29 patients representing urban and rural areas from 3 Australian states who participated in 4 focus groups. Seven patients provided individual interviews to supplement the data. Recordings were transcribed verbatim, data was coded with NVivo software and analysed thematically before deductive analysis. RESULTS: Four aspects of the referral process were identified by patients, namely detection/diagnosis, referral for initial treatment/specialist care, the roles of the GP/specialist, and the patient's perceived involvement in the process. The referral process was characterised by a lack of patient involvement, with few examples of shared decision-making and few examples of limited choice. However, patients did not always feel they had the knowledge to make informed decisions. Information exchange was highly valued by patients when it occurred, and it increased their satisfaction with the process. Other factors mediating care included the use of the public versus private health system, the quality of information exchange (GP to specialist and GP to patient), continuity of care between GP and specialist, and the extent of information provision when patients moved between specialist and GP care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients described poor GP continuity, ad hoc organisational systems and limited information exchange, at both interpersonal and inter-organisational levels, all leading to sub-optimal care. Implementation of a system of information feedback to GPs and engagement with them might improve information exchange for patients, enabling them to be more involved in improved referral outcomes.

Referral pathways in colorectal cancer: an audit of surgeons's records.

PURPOSE: To explore the referral pathways of patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer to surgeons. METHOD: Australian surgeons from three states completed a questionnaire and their records were audited. RESULTS: Thirty-three surgeons provided data on 530 patients seen in the preceding 12 months. The median time between colonoscopy and first surgical consult was 10 days, with 19% of patients waiting more than 28 days. After adjustment for clustering, no surgeon factors were associated with the number of days between colonoscopy and surgery. A report back to the general practitioner (GP) was found in 78% of patients' records. This feedback varied between surgeons but none of the specific surgeon characteristics examined could explain this. CONCLUSION: Surgeons usually communicated with GP regardless of whether they were the referral source. However, communication with GP varied considerably among surgeons, with no evidence of a report to the GP in one-fifth of cases.

Patients with colorectal cancer - a qualitative study of referral pathways and continuing care.

BACKGROUND: This article explores the views of general practitioners on their referral of colorectal cancer patients following diagnosis to specialist surgeons. METHODS: Sampling was purposive. Nineteen GPs representing urban and rural areas participated in four focus groups. RESULTS: General practitioners viewed their relationship with surgeons to be of prime importance in the decision about whom to refer. This relationship allowed faster referrals and improved feedback from the specialist to the GP. General practitioners preferred referral to the private health services because they perceived delays in the public system and that referral and communication was easier with private specialists. Neither the volume of colorectal cancer work nor the availability of a multidisciplinary team influenced their decision making. DISCUSSION: The relationship and communication between GP and surgeon are important in facilitating the referral pathway and the continuing role that many GPs would like to have in the care of their patients.

Diabetic retinopathy screening and monitoring of early stage disease in general practice: design and methods.

Diabetic retinopathy is the leading cause of preventable blindness in Australians younger than 60 years, mainly from the development of diabetic macular oedema and the sequelae of advanced proliferative diabetic retinopathy. However, early detection and subsequent treatment of diabetic retinopathy, as recommended in Australian national guidelines, can prevent nearly all cases of severe vision loss and blindness, but few people achieve this goal. This paper describes the design and methods of an open controlled trial that aims to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and relative costs and benefits of identification and management of early stages of diabetic retinopathy in primary care, with tele-ophthalmic support and education. A mix of urban, regional and rural general practices across Queensland, Australia are participating in this study, with control practices matched to intervention practices by geographic location, size, patient profile, and shared hospital referral pathways. Outcome measures include the quality of the retinal photographs, the general practitioners' diagnostic accuracy, the acceptability of this intervention to patients, general practice staff and ophthalmologists, screening rates, appropriate monitoring of early stage disease, and the cost-effectiveness of this model, compared to usual care. If proven to be effective, this model of diabetic retinopathy screening and early disease stage monitoring has the potential to improve access to appropriate care. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 00336192).