Implementation of a better choice healthy food and drink supply strategy for staff and visitors in government owned health facilities in Queensland, Australia

Objective The present paper reports on a quality improvement activity examining implementation of A Better Choice Healthy Food and Drink Supply Strategy for Queensland Health Facilities (A Better Choice). A Better Choice is a policy to increase supply and promotion of healthy foods and drinks and decrease supply and promotion of energy-dense, nutrient-poor choices in all food supply areas including food outlets, staff dining rooms, vending machines, tea trolleys, coffee carts, leased premises, catering, fundraising, promotion and advertising. Design An online survey targeted 278 facility managers to collect self-reported quantitative and qualitative data. Telephone interviews were sought concurrently with the twenty-five A Better Choice district contact officers to gather qualitative information. Setting Public sector-owned and -operated health facilities in Queensland, Australia. Subjects One hundred and thirty-four facility managers and twenty-four district contact officers participated with response rates of 48·2 % and 96·0 %, respectively. Results Of facility managers, 78·4 % reported implementation of more than half of the A Better Choice requirements including 24·6 % who reported full strategy implementation. Reported implementation was highest in food outlets, staff dining rooms, tea trolleys, coffee carts, internal catering and drink vending machines. Reported implementation was more problematic in snack vending machines, external catering, leased premises and fundraising. Conclusions Despite methodological challenges, the study suggests that policy approaches to improve the food and drink supply can be implemented successfully in public-sector health facilities, although results can be limited in some areas. A Better Choice may provide a model for improving food supply in other health and workplace settings.

Submission to KPMG review of the Federal Government Initiative to “analyse dementia program and services funded by the Department of Social Services"

The comments I make are based on my nearly twenty years involvement in the dementia cause at both a national and international level. In preparation, I read two papers namely the Ministerial Dementia Forum – Option Paper produced by KPMG Management Consultants (2014) and Analysis of Dementia Programmes and Services Funded by the Department of Social Services: Conversation Starter prepared by KPMG as a preparation document for those attending a workshop in Brisbane on April 22nd 2015. Dementia is a complex “syndrome” and as is often said, “when you meet one person with dementia, you have met one” meaning that no two persons with dementia are the same. Even in dementia care, Australia is a “lucky country” and there is much to be said for the quality and diversity of dementia care available for people living with dementia. Despite this, I agree with the many views expressed in the material I read that there is scope for improvement, especially in the way that services are coordinated. In saying that, I do not purport to have all the solutions nor claim to have the knowledge required to comment on all the programs covered by this review. If I appear to be a “biased” advocate for Alzheimer’s Australia across the States and Territories, it is because I have seen constant evidence of ordinary people doing extraordinary things with inadequate resources. Dementia care is not cheap and if those funding dementia services are primarily only interested in economic outcomes and benefits, the real purpose of this consultation will be defeated. In addition, nowhere in the material I have read is there any recognition that in many instances program funding is a complex mix of government (at all levels) and private funding. This makes reviewing those programs more complex and less able to be coordinated at a Departmental level. It goes without saying therefore that the Federal Government is not” the only player in this game”. Of all those participating in this review, Alzheimer’s Australia is best placed to comment on programs as it is more connected to people living with dementia and has probably the best record of consulting with them. It would appear however that their role has been reduced to that of a “bit player”. Without wanting to be critical, the Forum Report which deals with the comments made at a gathering of 70 individuals and organisations, only three (3) or 4.28% were actual carers of people living with dementia. Even if it is argued that a number of organisations present represented consumers, the percentage goes up only marginally to 8.57% which is hardly an endorsement of the forum being “consumer driven”. The predominance of those present were service providers, each with their own agenda and each seeking advantage for their “business”. The final point I want to make before commenting on more specific, program related issues, is that many programs being reviewed have a much longer history than is reflected in the material I have read. Their growth and development was pioneered by Alzheimer’s Australia organisations across the country often with no government funding. Attempts to bring about better coordination of programs were often at the behest of Alzheimer’s Australia but in the main were ignored. The opportunity to now put this right is long overdue.

Prevalence and predictors of giving birth in health facilities in Bugesera District, Rwanda.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel is one of two indicators used to measure progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5, which aims for a 75% reduction in global maternal mortality ratios by 2015. Rwanda has one of the highest maternal mortality ratios in the world, estimated between 249-584 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. The objectives of this study were to quantify secular trends in health facility delivery and to identify factors that affect the uptake of intrapartum healthcare services among women living in rural villages in Bugesera District, Eastern Province, Rwanda. METHODS: Using census data and probability proportional to size cluster sampling methodology, 30 villages were selected for community-based, cross-sectional surveys of women aged 18-50 who had given birth in the previous three years. Complete obstetric histories and detailed demographic data were elicited from respondents using iPad technology. Geospatial coordinates were used to calculate the path distances between each village and its designated health center and district hospital. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with delivery in health facilities. RESULTS: Analysis of 3106 lifetime deliveries from 859 respondents shows a sharp increase in the percentage of health facility deliveries in recent years. Delivering a penultimate baby at a health facility (OR = 4.681 [3.204 - 6.839]), possessing health insurance (OR = 3.812 [1.795 - 8.097]), managing household finances (OR = 1.897 [1.046 - 3.439]), attending more antenatal care visits (OR = 1.567 [1.163 - 2.112]), delivering more recently (OR = 1.438 [1.120 - 1.847] annually), and living closer to a health center (OR = 0.909 [0.846 - 0.976] per km) were independently associated with facility delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The strongest correlates of facility-based delivery in Bugesera District include previous delivery at a health facility, possession of health insurance, greater financial autonomy, more recent interactions with the health system, and proximity to a health center. Recent structural interventions in Rwanda, including the rapid scale-up of community-financed health insurance, likely contributed to the dramatic improvement in the health facility delivery rate observed in our study.

Programs and services of the Area D Community Mental Health Center.

On cover: The Area D Community Mental Health Center; programs and services, 1971.

Certificate of need, state health planning, and the state bonding authority for health facilities construction and development : Task Force report to the Council.

Cover title.

Directory of health care facilities and approved schools of nursing.

Prepared 1968-69 by Illinois Division of Health Care Facilities and Chronic Illness; 1970- by Illinois Division of Health Facilities.

Dixon Developmental Center : a program and administrative review.

Cover title.

Illinois health news : Illinois State Board of Health official monthly bulletin.

Title from cover.

Illinois State directory of resources and services of the Illinois State plan for the treatment and prevention of alcohol abuse and alcoholism.

Mode of access: Internet.

Report of the Compensation Review Board, State of Illinois.

Description based on: 1984.

Report of the Illinois Health Care Cost Containment Council to the Governor and the Illinois General Assembly on the effectiveness of certificate of need reveiew.

Cover title.

Volunteer service manual for commumity mental health facilities /

Cover title.

Why volunteers? For mental health facilities in Illinois.

Mode of access: Internet.

Section 232 mortgage insurance for residential care facilities (nursing homes, intermediate care facilities, and board and care homes.

"Replaces HUD handbook 4600.1 dated July, 1973."

Economic crisis and national health system

The text analyzes the impact of the economic crisis in some critical aspects of the National Health System: outcomes, health expenditure, remuneration policy and privatization through Private Public Partnership models. Some health outcomes related to social inequalities are worrying. Reducing public health spending has increased the fragility of the health system, reduced wage income of workers in the sector and increased heterogeneity between regions. Finally, the evidence indicates that privatization does not mean more efficiency and better governance. Deep reforms are needed to strengthen the National Health System.