scholarly journals The Benefits and Challenges of Point-of-Care Testing in Rural and Remote Primary Care Settings in Australia

2020 ◽  
Vol 144 (11) ◽  
pp. 1372-1380
Author(s):  
Mark Shephard ◽  
Anne Shephard ◽  
Susan Matthews ◽  
Kelly Andrewartha
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Point Of Care Testing ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Remote Health ◽  
Rural And Remote Health

Context.— Point-of-care (POC) testing has significant potential application in rural and remote Australian communities where access to laboratory-based pathology testing is often poor and the burden of chronic, acute, and infectious disease is high. Objective.— To explore the clinical, operational, cultural, and cost benefits of POC testing in the Australian rural and remote health sector and describe some of the current challenges and limitations of this technology. Data Sources.— Evidence-based research from established POC testing networks for chronic, acute, and infectious disease currently managed by the International Centre for Point-of-Care Testing at Flinders University are used to highlight the experience gained and the lessons learned from these networks and, where possible, describe innovative solutions to address the current barriers to the uptake of POC testing, which include governance, staff turnover, maintaining training and competency, connectivity, quality testing, sustainable funding mechanisms, and accreditation. Conclusions.— Point-of-care testing can provide practical and inventive opportunities to revolutionize the delivery of pathology services in rural and remote sectors where clinical need for this technology is greatest. However, many barriers to POC testing still exist in these settings, and the full potential of POC testing cannot be realized until these limitations are addressed and resolved.

scholarly journals Patient-Centred Point-of-Care Testing: A Life-Changing Technology for Remote Primary Care

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brooke Spaeth ◽  
Susan Matthews ◽  
Mark Shephard
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Perinatal Care ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Laboratory Services ◽  
Operating Theatres

Point-of-care (POC) testing has proven to be a life-changing and transformational technology for patients with acute, chronic, and infectious diseases who live in regional and remote Australia. This technology facilitates patient-centred test results, of equivalent laboratory quality, that are rapidly available to inform clinical and public health decisions with immediate impact on case management. Traditionally, POC testing in high-middle income countries has been most widely used in tertiary or acute care settings to provide rapid diagnostic results for emergency departments, intensive care units, operating theatres and outpatient clinics. However, in low-middle income countries, POC tests are commonly used during antenatal and perinatal care for infectious disease detection, such as Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or syphilis, where laboratory services are too expensive, inaccessible, or non-existent. Similarly, the application of POC testing in primary care settings in Australia offers improved healthcare benefits to geographically isolated regional and remote communities, where access to laboratory-based pathology testing is poor and the burden of disease is high. Evidence-based data from research in established primary care POC testing networks for acute chronic, and infectious disease is used to describe the clinical, cultural, and economic effectiveness of POC technologies. Innovative solutions to address current barriers to the uptake of POC testing in primary care settings, which include clinical and cultural governance, high staff turnover, operator training and competency, device connectivity, quality testing, sustainable funding strategies, and the need for regulatory requirements are also discussed. POC testing can provide practical and resourceful opportunities to revolutionise the delivery of pathology services in rural and remote primary care sectors, where the clinical and community need for this technology is greatest. However, several barriers to the scale-up and sustainability of POC testing networks in these settings still exist, and the full potential of POC testing cannot be realised until these limitations are addressed and resolved.

Factors that contribute to high-quality clinical supervision of the rural allied health workforce: lessons from the coalface

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Martin ◽  
Katherine Baldock ◽  
Saravana Kumar ◽  
Lucylynn Lizarondo
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Supervision ◽  
Health Workforce ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Allied Health ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Allied Health Professionals ◽  
Remote Health ◽  
Rural And Remote Health

Objective The aim of this study was to identify the factors contributing to high-quality clinical supervision of the allied health workforce in rural and remote settings. Methods This quantitative study was part of a broader project that used a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design. Participants were 159 allied health professionals from two Australian states. Quantitative data were collected using an online customised survey and the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26). Data were analysed using regression analyses. Results Supervisee’s work setting and choice of supervisor were found to have a positive and significant influence on clinical supervision quality. Supervisee profession and time in work role were found to have a negative and significant influence on the quality of clinical supervision. Conclusions High-quality clinical supervision is essential to achieve quality and safety of health care, as well as to support the health workforce. Information on high-quality clinical supervision identified in this study can be applied to clinical supervision practices in rural and remote settings, and to professional support policies and training to enhance the quality of supervision. What is known about the topic? There is mounting evidence on the benefits of clinical supervision to health professionals, organisations and patients. Clinical supervision enhances recruitment and retention of the health workforce. However, there are still gaps regarding the factors that contribute to high-quality clinical supervision, especially for rural and remote health professionals. What does this paper add? This study, the first of its kind, recruited rural and remote health professionals from seven allied health disciplines across two Australian states. It investigated the factors that influence high-quality clinical supervision in this under-resourced group. This paper outlines specific factors that contribute to clinical supervision quality for rural and remote allied health professionals. What are the implications for practitioners? Effective and high-quality clinical supervision of the rural and remote allied health workforce can enhance recruitment and retention in those areas. Healthcare organisations can facilitate effective clinical supervision delivery by using the evidence gathered in this study in clinical supervision policy, training and practice.

Mind the gap: is it time to invest in embedded researchers in regional, rural and remote health services to address health outcome discrepancies for those living in rural, remote and regional areas?

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Moran ◽  
Helen Haines ◽  
Nicole Raschke ◽  
David Schmidt ◽  
Alison Koschel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Outcome ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Capacity Building ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Knowledge Generation ◽  
Research Capacity Building ◽  
Rural And Remote ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Remote Health ◽  
Rural And Remote Health

Research capacity building in healthcare works to generate and apply new knowledge to improve health outcomes; it creates new career pathways, improves staff satisfaction, retention and organisational performance. While there are examples of investment and research activity in rural Australia, overall, rural research remains under-reported, undervalued and under-represented in the evidence base. This is particularly so in primary care settings. This lack of contextual knowledge generation and translation perpetuates rural–metropolitan health outcome disparities. Through greater attention to and investment in building research capacity and capability in our regional, rural and remote health services, these issues may be partially addressed. It is proposed that it is time for Australia to systematically invest in rurally focussed, sustainable, embedded research capacity building.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document