Explore the vast range of titles available.

Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the 'current' weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a 'newly developed' service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The 'no weekend allied health service' condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference -1.6 days [-2.0 to -1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: -0.01 [-0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796.

Background To describe the characteristics of emergency department (ED) patients defined as frequent presenters (FP) presenting to an Australian emergency department network and compare these with a cohort of non-frequent presenters (NFP). Method A retrospective chart review utilising an electronic emergency medicine patient medical record database was performed on patients presenting to Southern Health EDs from March 2009 to March 2010. Non-frequent presenters were defined as patients presenting less than 5 times and frequent presenters as presenting 8 or more times in the study period. Characteristics of both groups were described and compared. Results During the 12-month study period there were 540 FP patients with 4549 admissions and 73,089 NFP patients with 100,943 admissions. FP patients were slightly older with a significant increase in frequency of patients between the ages of 70 to 79 years and they were more likely to be divorced or separated than NFP patients. Frequent presenters to the emergency department were more likely to utilise the ambulance service to arrive at the hospital, or in the custody of police than NFP patients. FPs were more likely to be admitted to hospital, more likely to have an admission to a mental health bed than NFP patients and more likely to self-discharge from the emergency department while waiting for care. Conclusions There are major implications for the utilisation of limited ED resources by frequent presenters. By further understanding the characteristics of FP we may be able to address the specific health care needs of this population in more efficient and cost effective ways. Further research analysing the effectiveness of targeted multidisciplinary interventions aiming to reduce the frequency of ED attendances may be warranted.

Allied health comprises multiple professional groups including dietetics, medical radiation practitioners, occupational therapists, optometrists and psychologists. Different to medical and nursing, Allied health are often organized in discipline specific departments and allocate budgets within these to provide services to a range of clinical areas. Little is known of how managers of allied health go about allocating these resources, the factors they consider when making these decisions, and the sources of information they rely upon. The purpose of this study was to identify the key factors that allied health consider when making resource allocation decisions and the sources of information they are based upon. Four forums were conducted each consisting of case studies, a large group discussion and two hypothetical scenarios to elicit data. A thematic content analysis commenced during post-forum discussions of key factors by forum facilitators. These factors were then presented to an expert working party for further discussion and refinement. Transcripts were generated of all data recordings and a detailed thematic analysis was undertaken by one author to ensure coded data matched the initial thematic analysis. Twelve factors affecting the decision-making of allied health managers and clinicians were identified. One of these factors was disendorsed by the expert working party. The 11 remaining factors can be considered to be key decision-making principles that should be consistently applied to resource allocation. These principles were clustered into three overarching themes of readiness, impact and appropriateness. Understanding these principles now means further research can be completed to more effectively integrate research evidence into health policy and service delivery, create partnerships among policy-makers, managers, service providers and researchers, and to provide support to answer difficult questions that policy-makers, managers and service providers face.

The allied health workforce is currently in a very exciting and unique position to demonstrate leadership in health care and health workforce reform. Much has been documented regarding the challenges that the healthcare system is currently facing and is likely to face in the coming decades. One of the many strengths of the allied health workforce is the focus on prevention, health promotion and restoration or rehabilitation. If you think of health care as a sandwich, the author believes the acute system is the filling in the middle, with the prevention and rehabilitation being the bread on either side. In her opinion this is where the allied health workforce has greatest bang-for-buck and greatest impact on patient care.

Student clinics are generally more costly, from a university perspective, compared with placements in public health services.2 Forbes et al. report using casually employed clinical educators to provide clinical education and support.1 Based on the University of Queensland Enterprise Agreement, a conservative estimate of clinical educator cost is $AU4S per educator hour,3 with additional costs arising related to equipment, facilities, and support staff.4 In comparison, Victorian universities are charged a maximum of $AU57.15 per student day for allied health student placements by the host health services.5 Note that there is currently no standardised fee schedule in Queensland,6 which, according to supply and demand economic theory, should lead to an increase in the cost of placements to universities given the paucity of placement supply relative to demand. Governments are primarily focused on meeting the healthcare needs of the public, through ensuring adequate supply of workforce and delivery of quality health care, particularly for primary care and publicly funded health services. [...]if universities wish to make the case for sustained government funding for student clinics, these clinics must be designed for and demonstrate flow-on benefit to training and workforce pipelines, as well as providing care that is integrated with the wider healthcare system. When done well, student clinics can provide a valuable service to the community, often aimed at addressing vulnerable or disadvantaged patient populations, potentially reducing burden on other health services.9 Advancing health workforce development through financially sustainable student clinics requires a balanced focus on strong educational design and innovative funding mechanisms, ensuring that they meet the needs of students, universities, governments, and most importantly - patients.

Victoria was the Australian state most significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which caused significant disruption to Victorian health services. The aim of this case study is to describe the experience of the Victorian public health system in adapting to support allied health student education during the pandemic. Factors that affected student education were complex and dynamic, and included a decrease in traditional face-to-face learning opportunities due to a transition to telehealth, social distancing requirements, furlough of staff and travel restrictions. Impacts on placement capacity across allied health professions were highly variable. Strategies used to enable the continuation of student work-integrated learning (WIL) (also referred to as clinical placements or fieldwork) included an increase in remote placements and the use of technology. Enhanced communication between government and health service educators enabled rapid sharing of information and problem solving. At this time, the impacts on student preparedness for practice are unclear but may include deficits in interprofessional learning, clinical skills, increased levels of agility and enhanced resilience. This case study highlights the need for the health system to be adaptable and innovative to maintain the quality of student education, and the future allied health workforce, through the pandemic and beyond.

Disinvestment is critical for ensuring the long-term sustainability of health-care services. Key barriers to disinvestment are heterogeneity between research and clinical settings, absence of evidence of effectiveness of some health technologies, and exposure of patients and organizations to risks and poor outcomes. We aimed to develop a feasible research design that can evaluate disinvestment in health technologies of uncertain effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. This article (1) establishes the need for disinvestment methodologies, (2) identifies the ethical concerns and feasibility constraints of conventional research designs for this issue, (3) describes the planning, implementation, and analytical framework for a novel disinvestment-specific study design, and (4) describes potential limitations in application of this design. The stepped-wedge, roll-in cluster randomized controlled trial can facilitate the disinvestment process, whereas generating evidence to determine whether the decision to disinvest was sound in the clinical environment. A noninferiority research paradigm may be applied to this methodology to demonstrate that the removal of a health technology does not adversely affect outcomes. This research design can be applied across multiple fields and will assist determination of whether specific health technologies are clinically effective, cost-effective, and safe.

An ethnographic study was conducted in 2 stages to understand how allied health professionals define and apply equity when making resource allocation decisions. Participants were allied health managers and clinicians from Victoria, Australia. Stage 1 included 4 semi-structured forums that incorporated real-life case studies, group discussions, and hypothetical scenarios. The project’s steering committee began a thematic analysis during post-forum discussions. Stage 2 included a key stakeholder working party that further discussed the concept of equity. The forum recordings were transcribed verbatim, and a detailed thematic analysis ensured the initial thematic analysis was complete. Several domains of equity were discussed. Participants would readily identify that equity was a consideration when making resource decisions but were generally silent for a prolonged period when prompted to identify what they meant when using this term. The findings indicate that asking allied health professionals to directly state how they define and apply equity to their decision-making could be too difficult a task, as this did not elicit rich and meaningful discussions. Future research should examine individual domains of equity when applied to resource allocation decisions.

Background Disinvestment from inefficient or ineffective health services is a growing priority for health care systems. Provision of allied health services over the weekend is now commonplace despite a relative paucity of evidence supporting their provision. The relatively high cost of providing this service combined with the paucity of evidence supporting its provision makes this a potential candidate for disinvestment so that resources consumed can be used in other areas. This study aims to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of the current model of weekend allied health service and a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery on acute medical and surgical wards compared to having no weekend allied health service. Methods/Design Two stepped wedge, cluster randomised trials of weekend allied health services will be conducted in six acute medical/surgical wards across two public metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne (Australia). Wards have been chosen to participate by management teams at each hospital. The allied health services to be investigated will include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work and allied health assistants. At baseline, all wards will be receiving weekend allied health services. Study 1 intervention will be the sequential disinvestment (roll-in) of the current weekend allied health service model from each participating ward in monthly intervals and study 2 will be the roll-out of a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery. The order in which weekend allied health services will be rolled in and out amongst participating wards will be determined randomly. This trial will be conducted in each of the two participating hospitals at a different time interval. Primary outcomes will be length of stay, rate of unplanned hospital readmission within 28 days and rate of adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be number of complaints and compliments, staff absenteeism, and patient discharge destination, satisfaction, and functional independence at discharge. Discussion This is the world’s first application of the recently described non-inferiority (roll-in) stepped wedge trial design, and the largest investigation of the effectiveness of weekend allied health services on acute medical surgical wards to date. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. Registration number: ACTRN12613001231730 (first study) and ACTRN12613001361796 (second study). Was this trial prospectively registered?: Yes. Date registered: 8 November 2013 (first study), 12 December 2013 (second study). Anticipated completion: June 2015. Protocol version: 1. Role of trial sponsor: KP and DL are directly employed by one of the trial sponsors, their roles were: KP assisted with overall development of research design and assisted with overall project management; DL contributed to project management, administration and communications strategy.