Southern Rural Access Program (SRAP) Survey of Access to Outpatient Medical Services in the Rural Southeast, 2002-2003

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald E. Pathman
2003 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 416-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Beachler ◽  
Curtis Holloman ◽  
Donald E. Pathman

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 354-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin P. Rackley ◽  
John R. Wheat ◽  
Cynthia E. Moore ◽  
Robert G. Garner ◽  
Barbara W. Harrell

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 301-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Beachler ◽  
Curtis Holloman ◽  
James Herman
Keyword(s):  

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 354-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin P. Rackley ◽  
John R. Wheat ◽  
Cynthia E. Moore ◽  
Robert G. Garner ◽  
Barbara W. Harrell

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 308-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Pathman ◽  
Samruddhi Thaker ◽  
Thomas C. Ricketts ◽  
Jennifer B. Albright

2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 308-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Pathman ◽  
Samruddhi Thaker ◽  
Thomas C. Ricketts ◽  
Jennifer B. Albright

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Saurman ◽  
David Lyle ◽  
David Perkins ◽  
Russell Roberts

Objective To evaluate a rural emergency telepsychiatry program, the Mental Health Emergency Care–Rural Access Program (MHEC-RAP), which aims to improve access to emergency mental health care for communities throughout western New South Wales (NSW). Methods A descriptive analysis of service activity data from the introduction of the MHEC-RAP in 2008 to 2011 using Chi-squared tests and linear regression modelling to assess change and trends over time. Result There were 55 959 calls to the MHEC-RAP, 9678 (17%) of these calls initiated an MHEC-RAP service (~2500 each year). The use of video assessment increased over 18 months, then levelled off to an average of 65 each month. Health care provider use increased from 54% to 75% of all contacts, and 49% of MHEC-RAP patients were triaged ‘urgent’. Most (71%) were referred from the MHEC-RAP for outpatient care with a local provider. The proportion of MHEC-RAP patients admitted to hospital initially increased by 12%, then declined over the next 2 years by 7% (by 28% for admissions to a mental health inpatient unit (MHIPU)). Conclusion The MHEC-RAP is well established. It has achieved acceptable levels of service activity and continues to be as used as intended. Further research is required to confirm how the MHEC-RAP works in terms of process and capacity, how it has changed access to mental health care and to document its costs and benefits. What is known about the topic? Rural and remote communities have poorer access to and use of mental health services. Telehealth care is a reliable and accepted means for providing non-urgent mental health care. What does this paper add? The MHEC-RAP is a practical and transferable solution to providing specialist emergency mental health care, and support for local providers, in rural and remote areas via telehealth. There is a possible impact upon the problem of recruiting and retaining a mental health workforce in rural and remote areas. What are the implications for practitioners? Providing reliable remote access to specialist mental health assessment and advice while supporting providers in rural communities can result in better outcomes for patients and services alike.


2003 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 416-421
Author(s):  
Michael Beachler ◽  
Curtis Holloman ◽  
Donald E. Pathman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document