The rural medicine rotation: Increasing rural recruitment through quality undergraduate rural experiences

TITLE: The Rural Medicine Rotation: Increasing Rural Recruitment through Quality Undergraduate Rural Experiences Eley Diann, University of Queensland, School of Medicine, Rural Clinical Division, Toowoomba 4350, Queensland Australia Baker Peter, University of Queensland, School of Medicine Rural, Clinical Division, Toowoomba 4350, Queensland Australia Chater Bruce, University of Queensland, Chair, Clinical School Management Committee, School of Medicine Rural Clinical Division, Queensland Australia CONTEXT: While rural background and rural exposure during medical training increases the likelihood of rural recruitment (Wilkinson, 2003), the quality and content of that exposure is the key to altering undergraduatesâ?? perceptions of rural practice. The Rural Clinical Division at University of Queensland (UQ) runs the Rural Medicine Rotation (RMR) within the School of Medicine. The RMR is one of five eight week clinical rotations in Year three and is compulsory for all students. The RMR provides the opportunity to learn from a wide range of health professionals and clinical exposure is not restricted to general practice but also includes remote area nursing, Indigenous health care, allied health professionals and medical specialists. Week 1 involves preparation for their rural placement with workshops and seminars and Week 8 consolidates their placement and includes case and project presentations and a summative assessment. Weeks 2-7 are spent living and working as part of the health team in different rural communities. SETTING: Rural communities in and around Queensland including locations such as Arnham Land, Thursday Island, Mt. Isa and Alice Springs METHOD: All aspects of the RMR are evaluated with surveys using both qualitative and quantitative free response questions, completed by all students at the end of the Week 8. RESULTS: Overall the RMR is evaluated highly and narratives offered by students show that the RMR provides a positive rural experience. The overall impact of the RMR for students in 2004 ranked 3.45 on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = lowest and 4 = highest), and is exemplified by the following quote; â??I enjoyed my placement so much I am now considering rural medicine something I definitely had not considered beforeâ??. OUTCOME: The positive impact of the RMR on studentâ??s perceptions of rural medicine is encouraging and can help achieve the overall aim of increasing recruitment of the rural workforce in Australia.

Influences on doctors' prescribing: Is geographical remoteness a factor?

Objective: To identify factors influencing the prescribing of medicines by general practitioners in rural and remote Australia. Design: A qualitative study using a questionnaire to determine attitudes about prescribing, specific prescribing habits and comments on prescribing in ‘rural practice’. Setting: General practice in rural and remote Queensland. Subjects: General practitioners practising in rural and remote settings in Queensland (n = 258). Main outcome measures: The factors perceived to influence the prescribing of medicines by medical practitioners in rural environments. Results: A 58% response rate (n = 142) was achieved. Most respondents agreed that they prescribe differently in rural compared with city practice. The majority of respondents agreed that their prescribing was influenced by practice location, isolation of patient home location, limited diagnostic testing and increased drug monitoring. Location issues and other issues were more likely to be identified as ‘influential’ by the more isolated practitioners. Factors such as access to continuing medical education and specialists were confirmed as having an influence on prescribing. The prescribing of recently marketed drugs was more likely by doctors practising in less remote rural areas. Conclusion: Practising in rural and remote locations is perceived to have an effect on prescribing. These influences need to be considered when developing quality use of medicines policies and initiatives for these locations. What is already known: Anecdotal and audit based studies have shown that rural general practice differs to urban-based practice in Australia, including some limited data showing some variations in prescribing patterns. No substantiated explanations for these variations have been offered. It is known that interventions to change prescribing behaviour are more likely to be effective if they are perceived as relevant and hence increasing our knowledge of rural doctors’ perceptions of differences in rural practice prescribing is required. What this study adds: Rural doctors believed that they prescribe differently in rural compared with city practice and they described a range of influences. The more remotely located doctors were more likely to report the ‘rural’ influences on prescribing, however, most results failed to reach statistical significance when compared to the less remotely located doctors. These perceptions should be considered when developing medicines policy and education for rural medical practitioners to ensure it is perceived rurally relevant.