General practitioner utilisation amongst urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged less than 5 years

Aim There are limited studies documenting the frequency and reason for attendance to primary health care services in Australian children, particularly for urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. This study describes health service utilisation in this population in an urban setting. Methods An ongoing prospective cohort study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged <5 years registered with an urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care centre in Brisbane, Australia. Detailed demographic, clinical, health service utilisation and risk factor data are collected by Aboriginal researchers at enrolment and monthly for a period of 12 months on each child. The incidence of health service utilisation was calculated according to the Poisson distribution. Results Between 14 February 2013 and 31 October 2014, 118 children were recruited, providing data for 535 child-months of observation. Ninety-one percent of children were Aboriginal, 4% Torres Strait Islander and 5% were both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. The incidence of presentations to see a doctor for any reason was 43.9 episodes/100 child months (95%CI 38.4 – 49.9) The most common reasons for presentation were for immunisations (23%), respiratory illnesses (19%) and for Australian Government funded Indigenous child health check (16%). The primary health services used, for majority of these visits were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific medical services (61%). Conclusions Within a cultural-specific service for an urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there is a high frequency of childhood attendance at for primary health care services. Well-health checks and respiratory illnesses were the most common reasons. The high proportion of visits for well child services suggests a potential for opportunistic health promotion, education and early interventions across a range of child health issues.

Prevalence of foot disease and risk factors in general inpatient populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To systematically review studies reporting the prevalence in general adult inpatient populations of foot disease disorders (foot wounds, foot infections, collective ‘foot disease’) and risk factors (peripheral arterial disease (PAD), peripheral neuropathy (PN), foot deformity). Methods: A systematic review of studies published between 1980 and 2013 was undertaken using electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL). Keywords and synonyms relating to prevalence, inpatients, foot disease disorders and risk factors were used. Studies reporting foot disease or risk factor prevalence data in general inpatient populations were included. Included study's reference lists and citations were searched and experts consulted to identify additional relevant studies. 2 authors, blinded to each other, assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Applicable data were extracted by 1 author and checked by a second author. Prevalence proportions and SEs were calculated for all included studies. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects models where 3 eligible studies were available. Results: Of the 4972 studies initially identified, 78 studies reporting 84 different cohorts (total 60 231 517 participants) were included. Foot disease prevalence included: foot wounds 0.01–13.5% (70 cohorts), foot infections 0.05–6.4% (7 cohorts), collective foot disease 0.2–11.9% (12 cohorts). Risk factor prevalence included: PAD 0.01–36.0% (10 cohorts), PN 0.003–2.8% (6 cohorts), foot deformity was not reported. Pooled prevalence estimates were only able to be calculated for pressure ulcer-related foot wounds 4.6% (95% CI 3.7% to 5.4%)), diabetes-related foot wounds 2.4% (1.5% to 3.4%), diabetes-related foot infections 3.4% (0.2% to 6.5%), diabetes-related foot disease 4.7% (0.3% to 9.2%). Heterogeneity was high in all pooled estimates (I2=94.2–97.8%, p<0.001). Conclusions: This review found high heterogeneity, yet suggests foot disease was present in 1 in every 20 inpatients and a major risk factor in 1 in 3 inpatients. These findings are likely an underestimate and more robust studies are required to provide more precise estimates.

Trial of the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool: Building organisational performance in Australian general practice and primary health care

Objective: To nationally trial the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT), an organisational performance improvement tool previously co-created with Australian primary care practices to increase their focus on relevant quality improvement (QI) activities. Design: The study was conducted from March to December 2015 with volunteer general practices from a range of Australian primary care settings. We used a mixed-methods approach in two parts. Part 1 involved staff in Australian primary care practices assessing how they perceived their practice met (or did not meet) each of the 13 PC-PIT elements of high-performing practices, using a 1–5 Likert scale. In Part 2, two external raters conducted an independent practice visit to independently and objectively assess the subjective practice assessment from Part 1 against objective indicators for the 13 elements, using the same 1–5 Likert scale. Concordance between the raters was determined by comparing their ratings. In-depth interviews conducted during the independent practice visits explored practice managers’ experiences and perceived support and resource needs to undertake organisational improvement in practice. Results: Data were available for 34 general practices participating in Part 1. For Part 2, independent practice visits and the inter-rater comparison were conducted for a purposeful sample of 19 of the 34 practices. Overall concordance between the two raters for each of the assessed elements was excellent. Three practice types across a continuum of higher- to lower-scoring practices were identified, with each using the PC-PIT in a unique way. During the in-depth interviews, practice managers identified benefits of having additional QI tools that relate to the PC-PIT elements. Conclusions: The PC-PIT is an organisational performance tool that is acceptable, valid and relevant to our range of partners and the end users (general practices). Work is continuing with our partners and end users to embed the PC-PIT in existing organisational improvement programs.