LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Buykx Penny; Kinsman Leigh; Humphreys John S; Tham Rachel; Asaid Adel; Tuohey Kathy (2011)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Health Services Research
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Health Policy, RA1-1270, Public aspects of medicine, Study Protocol

Abstract

Background

Rural communities throughout Australia are experiencing demographic ageing, increasing burden of chronic diseases, and de-population. Many are struggling to maintain viable health care services due to lack of infrastructure and workforce shortages. Hence, they face significant health disadvantages compared with urban regions. Primary health care yields the best health outcomes in situations characterised by limited resources. However, few rigorous longitudinal evaluations have been conducted to systematise them; assess their transferability; or assess sustainability amidst dynamic health policy environments. This paper describes the study protocol of a comprehensive longitudinal evaluation of a successful primary health care service in a small rural Australian community to assess its performance, sustainability, and responsiveness to changing community needs and health system requirements.

Methods/Design

The evaluation framework aims to examine the health service over a six-year period in terms of: (a) Structural domains (health service performance; sustainability; and quality of care); (b) Process domains (health service utilisation and satisfaction); and (c) Outcome domains (health behaviours, health outcomes and community viability). Significant international research guided the development of unambiguous reliable indicators for each domain that can be routinely and unobtrusively collected. Data are to be collected and analysed for trends from a range of sources: audits, community surveys, interviews and focus group discussions.

Discussion

This iterative evaluation framework and methodology aims to ensure the ongoing monitoring of service activity and health outcomes that allows researchers, providers and administrators to assess the extent to which health service objectives are met; the factors that helped or hindered achievements; what worked or did not work well and why; what aspects of the service could be improved and how; what benefits have been realised and for whom; the level of community satisfaction with the service; and the impact of a health service on community viability. While the need to reduce the rural-urban health service disparity in Australia is pressing, the evidence regarding how to move forward is inadequate. This comprehensive evaluation will add significant new knowledge regarding the characteristics associated with a sustainable rural primary health care service.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission: A Healthier Future For All Australians - Final Report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission - June 2009. Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.
    • 2. Chenoweth L, Stehlik D: Using technology in rural practice - local area coordination in rural Australia. Rural Social Work 2002, 7(1):14-21.
    • 3. Humphreys J: Health service models in rural and remote Australia. In The New Rural Health: An Australian Text. Edited by: Wilkinson D, Blue I. Oxford University Press; 2002:273-296.
    • 4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW): Whose health? How population groups vary. Australia's health 2010 Canberra: AIHW; 2010, 227-280.
    • 5. Starfield B: Primary care: is it essential? Lancet 1994, 344:1129-1133.
    • 6. Starfield B: Primary Care: Balancing health needs, services and technology Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.
    • 7. Wakerman J, Humphreys J, Wells R, Kuipers P, Jones J, Entwistle P, Kinsman L: Features of effective primary health care models in rural and remote Australia: a case-study analysis. Medical Journal of Australia 2009, 191(2):88-91.
    • 8. Kuipers P, Humphreys J, Wakerman J, Wells R, Jones J, Entwistle P: Collaborative review of pilot projects to inform policy: A methodological remedy for pilotitis? Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 2008, 5(1):17.
    • 9. Wakerman J: Innovative rural and remote primary health care models: What do we know and what are the research priorities? Australian Journal of Rural Health 2009, 17:21-26.
    • 10. Broemeling AM, Watson DE, Black C, Reid RJ: Measuring the performance of primary health care: Existing capacity and future information needs. Centre for Health Service and Policy Research University of British Columbia; 2006.
    • 11. Australian Bureau of Statistics: ABS CDATA Online. 2010.
    • 12. Asaid A, Riley K: From solo practice to partnering: the evolution of the Elmore model of primary health. Australian Family Physician 2007, 36(3):167-169.
    • 13. Gregory A, Armstrong RM, Van Der Weyden MB: Rural and remote health in Australia: how to avert the deepening health care drought. Med J Aust 2006, 185(11/12):654-660.
    • 14. Donabedian A: The quality of care. How can it be assessed? Journal of the American Medical Association 1988, 260:1743-1748.
    • 15. Sibthorpe B: A proposed conceptual framework for performance assessment in primary health care: a tool for policy and practice. Canberra: Australian National University. Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute; 2004 [http://www.anu.edu.au/aphcri/Publications/ conceptual_framework.pdf].
    • 16. Tham R, Humphreys J, Kinsman L, Buykx P, Asaid A, Tuohey K, Riley K: Evaluating the impact of sustainable comprehensive primary health care on rural health. Australian Journal of Rural Health 2010, 18:166-172.
    • 17. National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission: Beyond the Blame Game - Accountability and performance benchmarks for the next Australian Health Care Agreements. Woden ACT Australia; 2008.
    • 18. Canadian Institute for Health Information: Pan-Canadian Primary Health Care Indicators. Ottawa, Canada; 20061.
    • 19. National Health Performance Committee: National Health Performance Framework. Brisbane: Queensland Health; 2001.
    • 20. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners: Standards for general practices. South Melbourne, Australia;, 4 2010.
    • 21. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW): Rural, regional and remote health - information framework and indicators -Version 1b. Rural Health Series no 6 Canberra: AIHW; 2005.
    • 22. Wakerman J, Humphreys J, Wells R, Kuipers P, Entwistle P, Jones J: A systematic review of primary health care delivery models in rural and remote Australia 1993-2006. Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute. Canberra: Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute; 2006 [http://www.anu.edu.au/aphcri/Domain/RuralRemote/index.php].
    • 23. Perera R, Dowell A, Crampton P, Kearns R: Panning for gold: An evidencebased tool for assessment of performance indicators in primary health care. Health Policy 2007, 80:314-327.
    • 24. Miller WP: Economic multipliers: How communities can use them for planning. Community and Economic Development Little Rock: University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture; 2007.
    • 25. Doeksen GA, Schott V: Economic importance of the health-care sector in a rural economy. Rural and Remote Health 2003, 3 (online).
    • 26. Campbell SM, Roland M, Quayle J, Buetow S, Shekelle P: Quality indicators for general practice: which ones can general practitioners and health authority managers agree are important and how useful are they? Journal of Public Health Medicine 1998, 20(4):414-421.
    • 27. The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners: Aiming for Excellence - An assessment tool for New Zealand general practice. New Zealand;, 3 2009.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article