Improving access for community health and sub-acute outpatient services: protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Waiting lists for treatment are common in outpatient and community services, Existing methods for managing access and triage to these services can lead to inequities in service delivery, inefficiencies and divert resources from frontline care. Evidence from two controlled studies indicates that an alternative to the traditional "waitlist and triage" model known as STAT (Specific Timely Appointments for Triage) may be successful in reducing waiting times without adversely affecting other aspects of patient care. This trial aims to test whether the model is cost effective in reducing waiting time across multiple services, and to measure the impact on service provision, health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction.

METHODS/DESIGN: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial has been designed to evaluate the impact of the STAT model in 8 community health and outpatient services. The primary outcome will be waiting time from referral to first appointment. Secondary outcomes will be nature and quantity of service received (collected from all patients attending the service during the study period and health-related quality of life (AQOL-8D), patient satisfaction, health care utilisation and cost data (collected from a subgroup of patients at initial assessment and after 12 weeks). Data will be analysed with a multiple multi-level random-effects regression model that allows for cluster effects. An economic evaluation will be undertaken alongside the clinical trial.

DISCUSSION: This paper outlines the study protocol for a fully powered prospective stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SWCRCT) to establish whether the STAT model of access and triage can reduce waiting times applied across multiple settings, without increasing health service costs or adversely impacting on other aspects of patient care. If successful, it will provide evidence for the effectiveness of a practical model of access that can substantially reduce waiting time for outpatient and community services with subsequent benefits for both efficiency of health systems and patient care.

Workplace violence in mental health: a Victorian mental health workforce survey

The international literature suggests workplace violence in mental health settings is a significant issue, yet little is known about the frequency, nature, severity and health consequences of staff exposure to violence in Australian mental health services. To address this gap, we examined these aspects of workplace violence as reported by mental health services employees in Victoria, Australia. The project used a cross-sectional, exploratory descriptive design. A random sample of 1600 Health and Community Services Union members were invited to complete a survey investigating exposure to violence in the workplace, and related psychological health outcomes. Participants comprised employees from multiple disciplines including nursing, social work, occupational therapy, psychology and administration staff. A total of 411 members responded to the survey (26% response rate). Of the total sample, 83% reported exposure to at least one form of violence in the previous 12 months. The most frequently reported form of violence was verbal abuse (80%) followed by physical violence (34%) and then bullying/mobbing (30%). Almost one in three victims of violence (33%) rated themselves as being in psychological distress, 54% of whom reported being in severe psychological distress. The more forms of violence to which victims were exposed, the greater the frequency of reports of psychological distress. Workplace violence is prevalent in mental health facilities in Victoria. The nature, severity and health impact of this violence represents a serious safety concern for mental health employees. Strategies must be considered and implemented by healthcare management and policy makers to reduce and prevent violence.

Mental health legislation (civil) in Australia and China: a comparative study

This comparative review of statutory provisions of Australian and Chinese law focuses on accessibility of mental health care, diagnosis, admission and treatment orders for involuntary patients in civil cases as well as discharge procedures. The introduction contextualises the object of the comparative study, including key rights and principles that are used as the basis for analysis. Such factors as different political and legal systems, history, culture, and infrastructure resources of China and Australia form the background for the legal examination. Not surprisingly, these five factors, rather than statutory texts per se, are found to be the most important drivers of each country’s approach to the law of mental health. Two cases, XX v WW [2014] VSC 564 in Australia and Xu Lixin v Xu Canxing, Qingchun Psychiatric Rehabilitation Hospital of Shanghai [2015], known as the Right to Liberty Case, in China illustrate practical differences in legal approach to involuntary treatment. The comparative analysis concludes by identifying the most problematic aspects of the legislation in each country.