Barriers, enablers and initiatives for uptake of advance care planning in general practice: a systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: How advance care planning (ACP) is conceptualised in Australia including when, where and how ACP is best initiated, is unclear. It has been suggested that healthcare delivered in general practice provides an optimal setting for initiation of ACP discussions but uptake remains low. This systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis sought to answer two questions: (1) What are the barriers and enablers to uptake of ACP in general practice? (2) What initiatives have been used to increase uptake of ACP in general practice? DESIGN: A systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature was undertaken. A socioecological framework was used to interpret and map the literature across four contextual levels of influence including individual, interpersonal, provider and system levels within a general practice setting. SETTING: Primary care general practice settings DATA SOURCES: Searches were undertaken from inception to July 2019 across Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Library of systematic reviews. RESULTS: The search yielded 4883 non-duplicate studies which were reduced to 54 studies for synthesis. Year of publication ranged from 1991 to 2019 and represented research from nine countries. Review findings identified a diverse and disaggregated body of ACP literature describing barriers and enablers to ACP in general practice, and interventions testing single or multiple mechanisms to improve ACP generally without explicit consideration for level of influence. There was a lack of cohesive guidance in shaping effective ACP interventions and some early indications of structured approaches emerging. CONCLUSION: Findings from this review present an opportunity to strategically apply the ACP research evidence across targeted levels of influence, and with an understanding of mediators and moderators to inform the design of new and enhanced ACP models of care in general practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018088838.

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.

The anatomical placement of body organs by Australian and New Zealand patients and health professionals in general practice.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding patients' awareness of the anatomical placement of their body organs is important for doctor-patient communication. AIM: To measure the correct anatomical placement of body organs by people from Australian and New Zealand general practices METHOD: A questionnaire survey containing drawings of 11 organs placed in different locations within each drawing. RESULTS: Among 1156 participants, there was no difference in the proportion of correct placement of 11 organs between Australian (51.7%) and New Zealand (49.6%) general practices. There was a positive correlation between the proportion of correctly placed organs and the age participants left school (p=0.012) and a negative correlation with the number of GP visits in the previous year (p=0.040). Participants from rural Australia were more likely to correctly place organs than urban participants (p=0.018). The mean proportion of organs correctly placed for doctors was 80.5%, nurses 66.5%, allied health 61.5%, health administrators 50.6% and the remaining consulting patients 51.3%. DISCUSSION: Patients from Australian and New Zealand general practice were poorly aware of the correct placement of organs. Health professionals were moderately better than patients at correct placement.