Introduction of routine outcome measures: staff reactions and issues for consideration

The aim of this study was to explore clinician reactions to (i) the introduction of routine outcome measures and (ii) the utility of outcomes data in clinical practice. Focus group discussions (n = 34) were conducted with mental health staff (n = 324) at approximately 8 months post implementation of routine outcome measures. A semi-structured interview schedule was used to collect data on two key issues; reactions to the introduction of outcome measures and factors influencing the utility of outcomes data in clinical practice. Data from the discussion groups were analysed using content analysis to isolate emerging themes. While the majority of participants endorsed the collection and utilization of outcomes data, many raised questions about the merits of the initiative. Ambivalence, competing work demands, lack of support from senior medical staff, questionable evidence to support the use of outcome measures, and fear of how outcomes data might be used emerged as key issues. At 8 months post implementation a significant number of clinical staff remained ambivalent about the benefits of outcome measurement and had not engaged in the process. The shift to a service model driven by outcomes and case-mix data will take time and resources to achieve. Implications for nursing staff are discussed.

The regulatory challenges in engineering a safer tipple

David Nutt asks two very important questions. Can we make alcohol safer? Can we use pharmacology and neuroscience to engineer a safer alternative to alcohol? The answer to the first question is clearly ‘yes’. We can make alcohol safer by encouraging drinkers to consume less alcohol per occasion. That goal can be accomplished by imposing lower taxes on lower alcohol beverages or a volumetric tax on alcoholic beverages (Babor et al., 2003).

The ethics of paying drug users who participate in research: a review and practical recommendations

THE PAYMENT OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS raises ethical and empirical questions that have special importance in addictions research involving drug-dependent participants. Despite a now large literature on human subjects payment, what is still needed is practical guidance for investigators and ethics committees. This paper reviews the literature on: current payment practices and guidelines; defining features of undue and due incentives and fair reimbursement; and the significance of risks and harms that may arise from paying drug using participants. We conclude that research payments are ethically acceptable in most circumstances of addictions research, but should be closely scrutinized in situations where these may exacerbate existing harms or create additional risks for participants and investigators. General principles, key questions and procedural options are highlighted for an applied approach to ethical research payments. Future research directions are identified.

General practice in Australia 2020: "robust and ready" or "rudderless and reeling"?

The future role and structure of Australian general practice remains uncertain, despite a decade of seemingly constant change following the release of the National Health Strategy papers. Some of the suggested change strategies (such as rural Practice Incentive Payments and practice accreditation) have been implemented; others (such as general practitioner involvement with area health authorities in delivering national goals and targets for communities) still await attention. An overarching vision for our health care system in 2020 and general practice's role within it are still to be clearly enunciated. Australia is at variance with other Western countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, which have spent significant time refocusing their health systems to deal with an ageing population with an increased burden of chronic disease. Health bureaucrats and governments need to invest strategically in operational primary care now. This will require the active commitment of general practice's national bodies to articulate and actively promote a shared vision for Australian general practice.

Australia's national suicide prevention strategy: the next chapter - Commentary

Australia's National Suicide Prevention Strategy (NSPS) is about to move into a new funding phase. In this context this paper considers the emphasis of the NSPS since its inception in 1999. Certain high-risk groups (particularly people with mental illness and people who have self-harmed) have been relatively neglected, and some promising approaches (particularly selective and indicated interventions) have been under-emphasised. This balance should be re-dressed and the opportunity should be taken to build the evidence-base regarding suicide prevention. Such steps have the potential to maximise the impact of suicide prevention activities in Australia.

What does the community think about lifespan extension technologies? The need for an empirical base for ethical and policy debates

Objectives: This paper examines public understandings of possibilities for increasing life expectancy, interest in taking up lifespan-extending interventions, and motivations influencing these intentions. Methods: Structured interviews were conducted with 31 adults, aged 50 and over. Results: Participants believed that technological advances would increase life expectancy but questioned the value of quantity over quality of life. Life in itself was not considered valuable without the ability to put it to good use. Participants would not use technologies to extend their own lifespan unless the result would also enhance their health. Conclusions: These findings may not be generalisable to the general public but they provide the first empirical evidence on the plausibility of common assumptions about public interest in 'anti-ageing' interventions. Surveys of the views of representative samples of the population are needed to inform the development of a research agenda on the ethical, legal and social implications of lifespan extension.