Dr Caitlin Brandenburg1, Prof Elizabeth Ward1,2, Dr Maria Schwarz1, Dr Michelle Palmer3, Ms Carina Hartley4, Prof Joshua Byrnes5, Ms Anne Coccetti6, Ms Rachel Phillips7, A/Prof Laurelie Wishart1,2,5,8
1Centre for Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Health, , Australia, 2School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, , Australia, 3Nutrition and Dietetics, Logan Hospital, Metro South Health, , Australia, 4Occupational Therapy, Logan Hospital, Metro South Health, , Australia, 5Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, , Australia, 6QEII Jubilee Hospital, Metro South Health, , Australia, 7Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, , Australia, 8Allied Health, Metro North Health, , Australia
Biography:
Dr Caitlin Brandenburg is a Research Fellow at Metro South Health, Gold Coast Health and Bond University in Queensland. Caitlin's research interests are in health services research and clinician research capacity building.
Abstract:
Introduction:
Allied Health Primary Contact Clinic (AHPCC) models of care have been increasingly implemented to address the growing demands on healthcare systems, and there is an expectation that these models are comprehensively evaluated. However, AHPCC evaluations often focus on a limited set of metrics, and the reasons for this are unclear. This project aimed to understand current evaluation practices and explore clinician attitudes to service evaluation across a variety of AHPCC models implemented within a Queensland metropolitan health service.
Method:
A convergent mixed methods approach was employed. Data collection consisted of a quantitative presurvey, analysed using descriptive statistics, and a qualitative descriptive interview, analysed using thematic analysis. Data were then merged and reported together. All lead clinicians from 30 eligible AHPCCs were approached to participate.
Results:
Twenty-three clinicians representing 22 AHPCCs consented to participate. The AHPCC models were complex and varied, and current evaluation practices reflected this diversity. Almost all AHPCCs collected measures that were part of routine practice (e.g. wait time, adverse events, discharges). Measures that were not commonly collected were quality of life and resource use (e.g. medical specialist time). Participants’ experiences of AHPCC evaluation were that: Evaluation is complex and challenging; Evaluation is important; and Evaluation needs to be (better) enabled.
Conclusion:
Current evaluation of AHPCCs is suboptimal, and comprehensive evaluation needs to be better valued and resourced at a local, statewide and national level. This would enable health services to fully understand the value of AHPCC services and drive evidence-informed decision making and strategy.