Are there differences between SIMG surgeons and locally trained surgeons in Australia and New Zealand, as rated by colleagues and themselves?

BACKGROUND: Representation of specialist international medical graduates (SIMGs) in specific specialties such as surgery can be expected to grow as doctor shortages are predicted in the context of additional care provision for aging populations and limited local supply. Many national medical boards and colleges provide pathways for medical registration and fellowship of SIMGs that may include examinations and short-term training. There is currently very little understanding of how SIMGs are perceived by colleagues and whether their performance is perceived to be comparable to locally trained medical specialists. It is also not known how SIMGs perceive their own capabilities in comparison to local specialists. The aim of this study is to explore the relationships between colleague feedback and self-evaluation in the specialist area of surgery to identify possible methods for enhancing registration and follow-up training within the jurisdiction of Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: Feedback from 1728 colleagues to 96 SIMG surgeons and 406 colleagues to 25 locally trained Fellow surgeons was collected, resulting in 2134 responses to 121 surgeons in total. Additionally, 98 SIMGs and 25 Fellows provided self-evaluation scores (123 in total). Questionnaire and data reliability were calculated before analysis of variance, principal component analysis and network analysis were performed to identify differences between colleague evaluations and self-evaluations by surgeon type. RESULTS: Colleagues rated SIMGs and Fellows in the 'very good' to 'excellent' range. Fellows received a small but statistically significant higher average score than SIMGs, especially in areas dealing with medical skills and expertise. However, SIMGs received higher scores where there was motivation to demonstrate working well with colleagues. Colleagues rated SIMGs using one dimension and Fellows using three, which can be identified as clinical management skills, inter-personal communication skills and self-management skills. On self-evaluation, both SIMGs and Fellows gave themselves a significant lower average score than their colleagues, with SIMGs giving themselves a statistically significant higher score than Fellows. CONCLUSIONS: Colleagues rate SIMGs and Fellows highly. The results of this study indicate that SIMGs tend to self-assess more highly, but according to colleagues do not display the same level of differentiation between clinical management, inter-personal and self-management skills. Further research is required to confirm these provisional findings and possible reasons for lack of differentiation if this exists. Depending on the outcome, possible support mechanisms can be explored that may lead to increased comparable performance with locally trained graduates of Australia and New Zealand in these three dimensions.

Lessons from the implementation of the Health Care Homes program.

Australia's primary health care system works well for most Australians, but 20% of people live with multimorbidity, often receiving fragmented care in a complex system. Australia's 10-year plan for primary health care recognises that person-centred care is essential to securing universal health coverage, improving health outcomes and achieving an integrated sustainable health system. The Health Care Homes trial tested a new model of person-centred care for people with chronic and complex health conditions. This model demonstrated that change can be achieved with dedicated transformational support and highlighted the importance of enablers and reform streams that are now established in the 10-year plan.

Co-creating education and training programs that build workforce capacity to support the implementation of integrated health care initiatives.

Value co-creation focuses on creating value with and for multiple stakeholders - through purposeful engagement, facilitated processes and enriched experiences - to co-design new products and services. User-centred design enables multidisciplinary teams to design and develop or adapt resources from the end user's perspective. Combining value co-creation and user-centred design offers an effective, efficient, user-friendly and satisfying experience for all participants, and can result in co-created, tailored and fit-for-purpose resources. These resources are more likely to be adopted, be usable, be sustainable and produce outcomes that matter, and thereby create value for all parties. Over the past 6 years, the Education and Innovation Department at Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited has used these methods to co-create education and training programs to build workforce capacity and support implementation of many person-centred integrated care programs. In this article, we present examples of how Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited used value co-creation and user-centred design to develop and deliver education programs in primary health care, and offer insights into how program developers can use these methods to co-create any health care product, service or resource to better address end user needs and preferences. As we strive to strengthen the role of consumers as active partners in care and improve service delivery, patient outcomes and patient experiences in Australia, it is timely to explore how we can use value co-creation and user-centred design at all levels of the system to jointly create better value for all stakeholders.

Building capacity in those who deliver palliative care services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The role of culture in palliative care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples builds on over 60 000 years of history and includes meaningful practices to support a good "finishing up". The Gwandalan National Palliative Care Project aims to build capacity in those who deliver palliative care to embed culturally responsive care in all end-of-life settings. Community consultation, value co-creation and user-centred design ensured that diverse Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives informed the Gwandalan curriculum. Emerging communities of practice serve as yarning circles where barriers to and enablers of service delivery can be shared and addressed collaboratively.

Creating person-centred health care value together.

In this article we ask: to what extent is person-centred care truly embedded in our system, and are we making the most of the policy levers that could help? We describe person-centred care, shine a light on deficits in the health system, and point to some policy enablers to support person-centred care. Cultural change and a commitment to value-based health care are required. We highlight the merit in adopting and acting on patient-reported measures as an indicator of what matters to the patient, the need for integrated data systems, and the role of a co-creation approach. Most importantly, we underscore the importance of funding reform and consumer leadership.

Activating people to partner in health and self-care: use of the Patient Activation Measure.

Patient activation is a behavioural concept and is at the heart of personalised care. It is defined as an individual's knowledge, skill and confidence for managing their health and health care. Evidence indicates that patient activation scores can predict health behaviour and are closely linked to various clinical outcomes: reduced unnecessary emergency department visits, hospital admissions and re-admissions. Patients with lower activation levels (25-40% of the population) are less likely to adopt healthy behaviour, and more likely to have poorer clinical outcomes and higher rates of hospitalisation. Effective interventions can improve a patient's activation level, and positive change in activation equates to positive change in self-care behaviour. But to improve patient activation, we must first measure it using a robust evidence-based tool such as the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) survey. Armed with the patient's PAM score, providers can tailor their care and help patients achieve better self-care, which can improve outcomes of care and reduce unnecessary health care utilisation. The PAM is also useful for population segmentation and risk stratification - to target interventions and health strategies to meet the needs of patients who are at different points along the activation continuum, to measure the performance of health care systems, and to evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions. The role of patient activation requires further serious consideration if we are to improve the long-term health and wellbeing of all Australians. The PAM tool is a feasible and cost-effective solution for achieving the Quadruple Aim - improving population health, the cost-efficiency of the health system, and patient and provider experience.

Value-based primary care in Australia: how far have we travelled?

In this article, we discuss how the value-based health care concept has matured across recent years, and consider how it can be achieved in the primary health care sector. We provide illustrations of related initiatives across the four domains of value-based health care, highlight the need for cultural transformation and reorientation of the system, and call for a national framework and agreed plan of action.

Factors affecting the embedding of integrated primary-secondary care into a health district.

With the aging population, the tide of chronic disease is rising with attendant increases in health service need. Integrated care and patient-centred approaches, which established partnerships between a regional Hospital and health service (HHS), the local primary health network and local general practitioners (GPs), were identified as exemplars of an approach needed to support growing community health needs. This paper summarises the findings from a process evaluation of four GP-specialist care integration programs with the aim of identifying recommendations for embedding integrated GP-specialist care into routine practice within the HHS. The process evaluation of the integration programs drew on input from a multidisciplinary expert advisory group and data collected through face-to-face semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, as well as surveys of participating GPs and patients. Overarching findings were identified and grouped under six themes: interdisciplinary teamwork; communication and information exchange; the use of shared care guidelines or pathways; training and education; access and accessibility; and funding. Within each theme, key challenges and enablers emerged. The findings of this study highlight benefits and challenges associated with the establishment of integrated care between primary and secondary care providers, leading to the development of key recommendations for routine integration.

Achieving Research Impact Through Co-creation in Community-Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study.

POLICY POINTS: Co-creation-collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders-is an increasingly popular approach to aligning research and service development. It has potential for "moving beyond the ivory towers" to deliver significant societal impact via dynamic, locally adaptive community-academic partnerships. Principles of successful co-creation include a systems perspective, a creative approach to research focused on improving human experience, and careful attention to governance and process. If these principles are not followed, co-creation efforts may fail. CONTEXT: Co-creation-collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders-reflects a "Mode 2" relationship (knowledge production rather than knowledge translation) between universities and society. Co-creation is widely believed to increase research impact. METHODS: We undertook a narrative review of different models of co-creation relevant to community-based health services. We contrasted their diverse disciplinary roots and highlighted their common philosophical assumptions, principles of success, and explanations for failures. We applied these to an empirical case study of a community-based research-service partnership led by the Centre of Research Excellence in Quality and Safety in Integrated Primary-Secondary Care at the University of Queensland, Australia. FINDINGS: Co-creation emerged independently in several fields, including business studies ("value co-creation"), design science ("experience-based co-design"), computer science ("technology co-design"), and community development ("participatory research"). These diverse models share some common features, which were also evident in the case study. Key success principles included (1) a systems perspective (assuming emergence, local adaptation, and nonlinearity); (2) the framing of research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core; and (3) an emphasis on process (the framing of the program, the nature of relationships, and governance and facilitation arrangements, especially the style of leadership and how conflict is managed). In both the literature review and the case study, co-creation "failures" could often be tracked back to abandoning (or never adopting) these principles. All co-creation models made strong claims for significant and sustainable societal impacts as a result of the adaptive and developmental research process; these were illustrated in the case study. CONCLUSIONS: Co-creation models have high potential for societal impact but depend critically on key success principles. To capture the nonlinear chains of causation in the co-creation pathway, impact metrics must reflect the dynamic nature and complex interdependencies of health research systems and address processes as well as outcomes.

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.

The Partners in Recovery program: mental health commissioning using value co-creation.

The Australian Government's Partners in Recovery (PIR) program established a new form of mental health intervention which required multiple sectors, services and consumers to work in a more collaborative way. Brisbane North Primary Health Network applied a value co-creation approach with partners and end users, engaging more than 100 organisations in the development of a funding submission to PIR. Engagement platforms were established and continue to provide opportunities for new co-creation experiences. Initially, seven provider agencies - later expanded to eight to include an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander provider organisation - worked collaboratively as a Consortium Management Committee. The co-creation development process has been part of achieving the co-created outcomes, which include new initiatives, changes to existing interventions and referral practices, and an increased understanding and awareness of end users' needs.

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.

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.