Mind the gap: is it time to invest in embedded researchers in regional, rural and remote health services to address health outcome discrepancies for those living in rural, remote and regional areas?

Research capacity building in healthcare works to generate and apply new knowledge to improve health outcomes; it creates new career pathways, improves staff satisfaction, retention and organisational performance. While there are examples of investment and research activity in rural Australia, overall, rural research remains under-reported, undervalued and under-represented in the evidence base. This is particularly so in primary care settings. This lack of contextual knowledge generation and translation perpetuates rural-metropolitan health outcome disparities. Through greater attention to and investment in building research capacity and capability in our regional, rural and remote health services, these issues may be partially addressed. It is proposed that it is time for Australia to systematically invest in rurally focussed, sustainable, embedded research capacity building.

Barriers to managing behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia: staff perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Residential aged care facilities are increasingly using pharmacological methods of managing BPSD such as antipsychotics, despite little evidence of effectiveness and high rates of adverse effects. Nonpharmacological approaches to management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) have not been widely implemented in residential aged care, despite reported effectiveness of these strategies. Residential aged care staff opinions on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological approaches to dementia care and any limitations to their use are not well documented. METHODOLOGY: This is the qualitative arm of a broader research project. A 43-point questionnaire was distributed to 6 rural aged care facilities to explore nurses' perceptions of the limitations of five commonly employed non pharmacological and pharmacological interventions in managing BPSD. FINDINGS: Staff reported that some non-pharmacological methods of managing BPSD were not the role of nursing staff. This suggests that other interventions such as increased staffing levels would not be effective in facilitating non pharmacological approaches to managing BPSD.

Mentoring in the management of hematological malignancies.

AIM: The Mentoring in Management of Haematological Malignancies (MMHM) project aimed to improve treatment outcomes, coordinate care and provide best practice for patients with hematological cancers, by developing a program of mentoring and multidisciplinary care between a regional and a metropolitan centre. METHODS: A regular multidisciplinary meeting conducted by teleconference was established between a tertiary metropolitan site and a regional practice to discuss cases of patients with hematological malignancies. Information from multidisciplinary team meetings was recorded to capture adherence to process and clinician outcomes. An educational program was developed. A gap analysis was performed to identify differences in routine practice between the two centers. Clinician satisfaction with mentoring and educational interventions was assessed by structured survey. RESULTS: The MMHM project developed a formal mentoring system to improve the management of patients by building on established links and developing an innovative model of web-based multidisciplinary care. The project established a novel multidisciplinary meeting between a metropolitan and regional site. Common treatment policies were adopted between the two sites. Development of an educational framework and mentoring for health-care professionals in regional areas was achieved by tutorials and workshops. Most participating clinicians indicated their high level of satisfaction with the mentoring project. CONCLUSION: The MMHM project was a successful pilot of a mentoring program in hematological cancers between metropolitan and regional centers that resulted in improved referral links, facilitated better care coordination, updated treatment policies and guidelines and increased clinician satisfaction and knowledge.

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of a nurse-provided intervention for hospitalised smokers.

OBJECTIVE: Does the provision of a nurse-based intervention lead to smoking cessation in hospital patients? METHODS: At tertiary teaching hospital in Newcastle, Australia, 4,779 eligible (aged 18-80, admitted for at least 24 hours, and able to provide informed consent) and consenting (73.4%) in-patients were recruited into a larger cross-sectional survey. 1,422 (29.7%) smokers (in the last 12 months) were randomly assigned to control (n = 711) or intervention group (n = 711). The brief nurse-delivered intervention incorporated: tailored information, assessment of withdrawal, offer of nicotine replacement therapy, booklets, and a discharge letter. Self-reported cessation at 12 months was validated with CO and salivary cotinine. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in self-reported abstinence at three or 12 months post intervention, based on an intention to treat analysis. At three months, self-reported abstinence was 27.3% (I) and 27.5% (C); at 12 months was 18.5% (I) and 20.6% (C). There were no differences in validation of self-report between intervention and control groups at 12 months. CONCLUSION: This brief nurse-provided in-patient intervention did not significantly increase the smoking cessation rates compared with the control group at either three or 12-month follow-up. IMPLICATIONS: A systematic total quality improvement model of accountable outcome-focused treatment, incorporating assertive physician-led pharmacotherapy, routine assessment and recording of nicotine dependence (ICD 10 coding), in- and outpatient services and engagement from multidisciplinary teams of health professionals may be required to improve treatment modalities for this chronic addictive disorder.