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.

Can telepharmacy provide pharmacy services in the bush?

Rural and remote community pharmacies service large areas of rural Queensland, and because of the distances involved often do not meet the patients for whom they provide medication. Telepharmacy would improve the quality of pharmaceutical services provided in rural and remote areas, by allowing community pharmacists to have realtime contact with dispensing doctors, aboriginal health workers and patients via a video-phone. We used commercial (analogue) videophones to connect community pharmacists to dispensing doctors, patients in depot pharmacies (i.e. those with no pharmacist) and aboriginal health workers. However, various problems occurred and only 10 video-phone interactions were recorded during the six-month project. In all of the recorded interactions, the video-phone was actually used as a conventional telephone because a video-connection could not be established at the time of the call. (This may have been due to telephone network problems in the rural areas.) Despite these problems, all project participants showed great enthusiasm for the potential benefits of such a service.

Why are health care interventions delivered over the internet? A systematic review of the published literature

Background: As Internet use grows, health interventions are increasingly being delivered online. Pioneering researchers are using the networking potential of the Internet, and several of them have evaluated these interventions. Objective: The objective was to review the reasons why health interventions have been delivered on the Internet and to reflect on the work of the pioneers in this field in order to inform future research. Methods: We conducted a qualitative systematic review of peer-reviewed evaluations of health interventions delivered to a known client/patient group using networked features of the Internet. Papers were reviewed for the reasons given for using the Internet, and these reasons were categorized. Results: We included studies evaluating 28 interventions plus 9 interventions that were evaluated in pilot studies. The interventions were aimed at a range of health conditions. Reasons for Internet delivery included low cost and resource implications due to the nature of the technology; reducing cost and increasing convenience for users; reduction of health service costs; overcoming isolation of users; the need for timely information; stigma reduction; and increased user and supplier control of the intervention. A small number of studies gave the existence of Internet interventions as the only reason for undertaking an evaluation of this mode of delivery. Conclusions: One must remain alert for the unintended effects of Internet delivery of health interventions due to the potential for reinforcing the problems that the intervention was designed to help. Internet delivery overcomes isolation of time, mobility, and geography, but it may not be a substitute for face-to-face contact. Future evaluations need to incorporate the evaluation of cost, not only to the health service but also to users and their social networks. When researchers report the outcomes of Internet-delivered health care interventions, it is important that they clearly state why they chose to use the Internet, preferably backing up their decision with theoretical models and exploratory work. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a health care intervention delivered by the Internet needs to include comparison with more traditional modes of delivery to answer the following question: What are the added benefits or disadvantages of Internet use that are particular to this mode of delivery? © Griffiths, Frances, Lindenmeyer, Antje, Powell, John, Thorogood, Margaret.