MAAGs: the next generation. A study of the development of medical audit advisory groups and the arrangements for supporting clinical audit in primary care

Background: MAAGs have, historically, been disparate organisations with a lack of central direction, albeit with the same goal: to develop and support the performance of audit in primary care. This goal has been (and is being) achieved in a number of ways all over the country. In the last two years, MAAGs have witnessed many changes in primary care and are adapting themselves to suit these new arrangements at a local level.

Aim: To formalise our knowledge of where MAAGs are going, how they are getting there and the support they are receiving.

Method: A postal questionnaire to the 104 MAAGs in England and Wales, addressing 6 main issues of relevance to the development of MAAGs and the support they are receiving.

Results: At least two MAAGs have dissolved, leaving a possible total of 102 still in existence. Of these, 76 (74.5%) responded to the survey. The composition of the MAAG committee has changed dramatically since the inception of MAAGs in 1990, and staffing levels appear to have risen substantially. MAAGs appear to be more adequately funded by their health authorities than has previously been reported and many are actively seeking additional sources of funding. There is still large variation in levels of MAAG funding. Furthermore, funding is unrelated to the number of GPs or practices served. Security for MAAG staff appears to have been addressed in many areas, with 84% of MAAGs having at least one member of staff on a permanent employment contract. Many MAAGs are developing rolling programmes in an attempt to eliminate the short-sighted approach to the development of clinical audit that has existed since MAAGs were first set up.

Conclusion: Many MAAGs (with the obvious exception of those that have been dissolved) appear to be thriving without central direction or initiative. It is now evident that we were a little hasty in our concerns for the future of MAAGs beyond April 1996. It would seem that many organisations have taken the situation which arose two years ago as an opportunity to grow and develop in ways that may not have been possible within the confines of the Health Circular.

Investigation of overweight and obesity management in a rural primary health care setting

Background : The rural region of interest has one main central medical clinic and several smaller outlying clinics. The services available for weight management include dietetic services, community-based groups and bariatric surgery. At present, no formal area specific referral pathway exists for the treatment of overweight and obesity.
Aims & rationale/Objectives : To investigate general practitioners':
- assessment practices and experiences with overweight and obese clients
- experience of different treatment options for overweight and obesity
- perceived barriers to overweight and obesity management.
Methods : A self-administered survey will be sent to general practitioners within the region of interest. The survey was designed to investigate current methods of assessing overweight and obesity; treatment options; and perceived barriers to successful weight management. Participants will also be offered a brief interview to discuss the following topics; Usefulness of NHMRC's Overweight and Obesity Guidelines; barriers and frustrations of weight management, GP's and dietitian's roles in overweight and obesity treatment.
Principal findings : It is expected the principal findings will include details about methods used to determine overweight and obesity; factors considered when selecting patients for treatment; favoured treatment options of GPs; perceived barriers and frustrations of managing overweight and obese patients.
Discussion : Overweight and obesity are significant health issues in Australia, with recent data indicating more than 60% of Australian adults are affected (NHMRC, 2003). Studies have also suggested that the prevalence of overweight and obesity is higher in rural populations (Coulson, 2005). GPs have been recognised as an important contributor in the treatment of overweight and obesity (Campbell, 2000). There have been guidelines produced to assist GPs, however the extent to which guidelines are utilised or their perceived effectiveness have not yet been investigated.
Implications : It is thought that an investigation into current methods of assessing overweight and obesity; treatment options; and perceived barriers to successful weight management will provide valuable information to inform primary health care service provision and future quality improvement directions.
Presentation type : Poster
Session theme : Primary health care delivery

Primary health-care costs associated with special health care needs up to age 7 years: Australian population-based study.

We studied infants and children with and without special health care needs (SHCN) during the first 8 years of life to compare the (i) types and costs to the government's Medicare system of non-hospital health-care services and prescription medication in each year and (ii) cumulative costs according to persistence of SHCN.

Why primary health care offers a more comprehensive approach to tackling health inequities than primary care.

As governments attempt to focus more intently on how to deal with alarming measures of health disadvantage and inequities, a reformist gaze seems to have settled on the primary care sector. Simultaneously, in literature about this area, whether intended or not, primary health care and primary care are terms that are increasingly interchanged. This article argues that the slippage in language is counter-productive, first because it disguises the transformative potential of strategies and approaches that can make the fundamental changes necessary to improve health status, and second because the structures and practices of the primary care sector are not necessarily compatible with notions of comprehensive primary health care. There is much to be lost if primary health care and health promotion are disguised as primary care, and not understood for their capacity to make a difference to health inequities although of course in some circumstances, comprehensive primary health care is interdependent with services provided by primary care. In this article, characteristics of primary care and primary health care are juxtaposed to show that if the strengths and limitations of each model are understood, they can be mobilised in collaborative partnerships to deal more effectively with health inequities, than our system has so far been able to do.

Prevention of type 2 diabetes in a primary health care setting interim results from the Greater Green Triangle (GGT) Diabetes Prevention Project

Although clinical trials have shown that lifestyle modifications reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, translating lessons from trials to primary care remains a challenge. The aim of the study was to evaluate efficacy and feasibility of primary care-based diabetes prevention model with modest resource requirements in rural Australia. Three hundred and eleven subjects with at least a moderate risk of type 2 diabetes participated in a combined dietary and physical activity intervention. Clinical measurements and fasting blood samples were taken at the baseline and after intervention. After 3 months intervention, total (change −3.5%, p < 0.001) and LDL cholesterol (−4.8%, p < 0.001) plasma levels as well as body mass index (−2.5%, p < 0.001), weight (−2.5%, p < 0.001), and waist (−1.6%, p < 0.001) and hip (−2.7%, p < 0.001) circumferences reduced significantly. A borderline reduction was found in triglyceride levels (−4.8%, p = 0.058) while no changes were observed in HDL cholesterol (+0.6%, p = 0.525), glucose (+0.06%, p = 0.386), or systolic (−0.98%, p = 0.095) or diastolic (−1.06%, p = 0.134) blood pressure levels. In conclusion, a lifestyle intervention improved health outcomes – especially obesity and blood lipids – in a population at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Our results suggest that the present model is effective and feasible to carry out in primary care settings.

Prevention of type 2 diabetes by lifestyle intervention in an Australian primary health care setting : Greater Green Triangle (GGT) Diabetes Prevention Project

Background
Randomised controlled trials demonstrate a 60% reduction in type 2 diabetes incidence through lifestyle modification programmes. The aim of this study is to determine whether such programmes are feasible in primary health care.

Methods
An intervention study including 237 individuals 40–75 years of age with moderate or high risk of developing type 2 diabetes. A structured group programme with six 90 minute sessions delivered during an eight month period by trained nurses in Australian primary health care in 2004–2006. Main outcome measures taken at baseline, three, and 12 months included weight, height, waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose and lipids, plasma glucose two hours after oral glucose challenge, blood pressure, measures of psychological distress and general health outcomes. To test differences between baseline and follow-up, paired t-tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed.

Results
At twelve months participants' mean weight reduced by 2.52 kg (95% confidence interval 1.85 to 3.19) and waist circumference by 4.17 cm (3.48 to 4.87). Mean fasting glucose reduced by 0.14 mmol/l (0.07 to 0.20), plasma glucose two hours after oral glucose challenge by 0.58 mmol/l (0.36 to 0.79), total cholesterol by 0.29 mmol/l (0.18 to 0.40), low density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.25 mmol/l (0.16 to 0.34), triglycerides by 0.15 mmol/l (0.05 to 0.24) and diastolic blood pressure by 2.14 mmHg (0.94 to 3.33). Significant improvements were also found in most psychological measures.

Conclusion
This study provides evidence that a type 2 diabetes prevention programme using lifestyle intervention is feasible in primary health care settings, with reductions in risk factors approaching those observed in clinical trials.

Trial Number
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38031372

A qualitative study of primary health care access, barriers and satisfaction among people with mental illness

Research has found that a substantial proportion of individuals with mental illness have high morbidity and mortality rates, and high under-diagnosis of major physical illnesses. Furthermore, people with a mental illness tend not to seek out or utilise health care services. The reasons for the negative attitudes and behaviour towards health care services among this population have not been investigated. This paper presents findings from a study that investigated the health care service needs of people with mental illness (n = 20), and views from health care providers (n = 16) regarding access to these services by people with a mental illness. Results indicated that psychiatric patients identified a range of barriers to their health care usage and low levels of health care satisfaction. These views were shared with health care professionals. Reasons for these findings and strategies to address these problems so that there is better access to health care services for people with mental illness are discussed.

The origins of contemporary primary health care

This chapter begins by exploring the concept of primary health care (PHC), linking this to relevant international and national policy documents, and introducing the concept of PHC developed by the World Health Organization. The chapter then focuses on the UK. It explains how PHC is not just found within the NHS, reviews the different sectors involved in PHC, and then discusses the current structure of PHC in the NHS. Key concepts, including the primary health care team, primary care trusts and integrated heath and social care trusts, and the relevant current UK policy documents are introduced.

The chapter then moves on to discuss four important issues in the provision of primary health care in the community: health promotion; tackling health inequalities; health and regeneration; and, tackling domestic violence. The subsection on each of these will explain why the issue is of particular significance and review briefly a number of studies/projects which illustrate what is happening/can be done; this will introduce a range of current research. The chapter concludes with a short review of challenges for the future, emphasising the important role that the nursing profession has to play in meeting these challenges.

A cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of primary health care interventions: case study of the Australian Indigenous population

Background : Efficiency and equity are both important policy objectives in resource allocation. The discipline of health economics has traditionally focused on maximising efficiency, however addressing inequities in health also requires consideration. Methods to incorporate equity within economic evaluation techniques range from qualitative judgements to quantitative outcomes-based equity weights. Yet, due to definitional uncertainties and other inherent limitations, no method has been universally adopted to date. This paper proposes an alternative cost-based equity weight for use in the economic evaluation of interventions delivered from primary health care services.

Methods : Equity is defined in terms of 'access' to health services, with the vertical equity objective to achieve 'equitable access for unequal need'. Using the Australian Indigenous population as an illustrative case study, the magnitude of the equity weight is constructed using the ratio of the costs of providing specific interventions via Indigenous primary health care services compared with the costs of the same interventions delivered via mainstream services. Applying this weight to the costs of subsequent interventions deflates the costs of provision via Indigenous health services, and thus makes comparisons with mainstream more equitable when applied during economic evaluation.

Results : Based on achieving 'equitable access', existing measures of health inequity are suitable for establishing 'need', however the magnitude of health inequity is not necessarily proportional to the magnitude of resources required to redress it. Rather, equitable access may be better measured using appropriate methods of health service delivery for the target group. 'Equity of access' also suggests a focus on the processes of providing equitable health care rather than on outcomes, and therefore supports application of equity weights to the cost side rather than the outcomes side of the economic equation.

Conclusion : Cost-based weights have the potential to provide a pragmatic method of equity weight construction which is both understandable to policy makers and sensitive to the needs of target groups. It could improve the evidence base for resource allocation decisions, and be generalised to other disadvantaged groups who share similar concepts of equity. Development of this decision-making tool represents a potentially important avenue for further health economics research.