Discussion
An initial baseline evaluation was conducted at three months. The evaluation was conducted using an online survey with rating and ranking scale questions; open ended and free text comment sections. Descriptive statistical analysis has been conducted, and free text comments coded for common expressions and themes.
Focusing on training as the primary tenant rather than service, has demonstrated that the current infrastructure, industrial and training framework doesn't easily satisfy the expectations of trainees.
Stakeholders included in the evaluation were GP Registrars, General Practitioners, Supervising Senior Medical Officers, GP Practice Staff, hospital nursing staff and GP Facilitators.
Data collected during the preliminary study included:
- comparison of the service and training models across all four facilities (Texas, Inglewood, Millmerran and Stanthorpe)
- review of supervision model including preferences, opinion and limitations
- review of training content and delivery
- perceptions on the value, barriers and benefits of the model including impact on work life balance
- perceptions on the sustainability of the model including opinion on scope for expansion and community impact
We have devised a substantial data collection tool using RedCap where we benchmark our readmission rates against a validated readmission risk tool , the LACE score.
The LACE score of our patients show that 41 and 34% of our patients have a high or very high risk of readmission.
The LACE score, developed by van Walraven uses a simple formula of hospital length of stay, admission type , Charlson Comordity Index and number of visits within the last six months to predict a patients risk of readmission or death within 30 days of admission.
So, using the LACE score we compared our patients against their predicted readmission risk.
The evidence suggest our program is working particularly with patients at high risk of readmission.
VanWalraven predicts up to a 30-43% risk of readmission for a patient with a very high LACE score; however only 12 % of our patients in this range were readmitted within 30days.
While it is predicted that 20% of patients with a high LACE score of 10-14 we are seeing only 10% readmission rates.
Our service evaluation and data collection continues.
Lessons learnt
Infrastructure challenges faced were mostly around historical infrastructure in some rural and remote communities which was found to be not fit for purpose to address quality standards for specialist general practice training. Further to this, conflicting funding arrangements for primary care in smaller rural and remote communities was identified and there can be a tension between hospital and primary care services and without suitable arrangements.
Industrially the model was challenging due to the historical staffing levels of smaller rural communities and reduced capacity to cover on call and after hours duties. Implementing a registrar (Principal House Officer) based component should only be considered where suitable supervision and fatigue management opportunities exist.
In spite of the above potential exists for collaboration as demonstrated amongst rural hospitals, small community hospitals, general practices and community-based health services such as pharmacies working together. Positive engagement from GP training colleges and regional training organisations underpins these communities of practice on the ground.
Although the current principal focus, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic has been on telehealth and videoconference, this model is proof that face-to-face contact is still the gold standard for education and training.