Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background. Potential organ donors are carefully assessed by expert clinicians (donation specialists) who evaluate a variety of factors, including balancing potential transplant benefits and biovigilance risks, under time constraints. We aimed to identify and understand the factors that donation specialists consider when appraising a potential organ donor and how they balance the risk and benefits when determining the medical suitability to proceed to donation. Methods. Exploratory qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 12 donation specialists in NSW, Australia. Interviews included 1) open-ended questions focused on the general potential organ donation pathway and 2) hypothetical potential donor scenarios, with participants invited to voice their decision-making process. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the framework method. Results. We identified 3 themes: 1) from automatic exclusions to more collaborative decision making; (2) “risk appetite,” uncertainty, and information gaps; and 3) the role of recipients and their families in decision making. Deceased donor medical suitability was determined by a complex interplay of clinical practice guidelines, guidance from colleagues, and personal risk propensity, with variability in decision making irrespective of standardized information provision. Decisions that a potential donor was unsuitable were often driven by compounding risks, accentuated in the context of missing information and incomplete medical histories. Considering both potential donor and potential recipient profiles in tandem and including potential recipients and/or their families in decision making was considered important. However, narratives were marked by frustration with patients’ risk propensity and challenges with communication under time pressure. Conclusion. Clinicians assessing the medical suitability of potential deceased organ donors face challenges such as incomplete medical histories and communication barriers. Decision-support tools and early engagement with potential recipients and their families to elicit their preferences and risk tolerance could aid clinicians in making more informed decisions under time pressure. Highlights In this qualitative study with Australian donation specialists, we found that potential deceased donor medical suitability was determined by a complex interplay of clinical practice guidelines, guidance from colleagues, and personal risk propensity, with variability in decision making irrespective of standardized information provision. Decisions to forego a potential donor were often driven by compounding risks and worsened by missing information and incomplete medical histories. Considering both potential donor and recipient profiles in tandem and including the recipient and/or their families in decision making were considered important but challenging under time pressure.

Background Refugees and asylum seekers arrive in the Australian community with complex health needs and expectations of healthcare systems formed from elsewhere. Navigating the primary healthcare system can be challenging with communication and language barriers. In multicultural societies, this obstacle may be removed by accessing language‐concordant care. Emerging evidence suggests language‐concordance is associated with more positive reports of patient experience. Whether this is true for refugees and asylum seekers and their expectation of markers of quality patient‐centred care (PCC) remains to be explored. This study aimed to explore the expectations around the markers of PCC and the impacts of having language‐concordant care in Australian primary healthcare. Methods We conducted semi‐structured individual in‐language (Arabic, Dari, and Tamil) remote interviews with 22 refugee and asylum seekers and 9 general practitioners (GPs). Interview transcripts were coded inductively and deductively, based on the research questions, using Thematic Analysis. Extensive debriefing and discussion took place within the research team throughout data collection and analysis. Results Community member expectations of markers of PCC are constantly evolving and adapting based on invisible and visible actions during clinical encounters. Challenges can occur in the clinical encounter when expectations are ‘unsaid’ or unarticulated by both community members and GPs due to the assumption of shared understanding with language concordant care. Expectations of what constitutes satisfactory, quality PCC are dynamic outcomes, which are influenced by prior and current experiences of healthcare. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of understanding that language concordant care does not always support aligned expectations of the markers of quality PCC between community members and their GP. We recommend that GPs encourage community members to provide explicit descriptions about how their prior experiences have framed their expectations of what characterizes quality PCC. In addition, GPs could develop a collaborative approach, in which they explain their own decision‐making processes in providing PCC to refugees and asylum seekers. Patient or Public Contribution Bilingual researchers from multicultural backgrounds and experience working with people from refugee backgrounds were consulted on study design and analysis. This study included individuals with lived experiences as refugees and asylum seekers and clinicians as participants.

Background and objective: Primary healthcare practitioners (PHPs) are often the first point of care for people seeking refuge or asylum in Australia. Communication plays a vital part in their care. The aim of this study was to identify, appraise and synthesise online resources that aim to support communication during consultations with these patients. Methods: A systematic environmental scan of online Australian resources, using the Google search engine, was conducted. The resources were appraised and rated using a validated purpose taxonomy as well as the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials to determine understandability and actionability. Results: A total of 32 unique resources were identified. On average, the resources scored better on understandability (mean 64%) than actionability (mean 49%). The resources each had between two and five purpose taxonomy types, and the proportion of the content relevant to communication ranged from 5% to 100%. Discussion: There are multiple resources available to PHPs to improve their communication with refugee and asylum seeker patients. Those that were rated better overall identified the population group and had practical suggestions to help operationalise their content. This article synthesises the online resources with practical suggestions regarding continuity of care, language barriers and PHPs' responsiveness to individual and cultural considerations.

Refugee and asylum seeker population numbers are rising in Western countries. Understanding the communication experiences, within healthcare encounters, for this population is important for providing better care and health outcomes. This review summarizes the literature on health consultation communication experiences of refugees and asylum seekers living in Western countries. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to 31 March 2019. Studies were included if they aimed to improve, assess or report on communication/interaction in the primary health care consultation setting with refugees or asylum seekers, and were conducted in Western countries. A narrative synthesis of the literature was undertaken. Thematic analysis of the 21 included articles, showed that refugees and asylum seekers experience a range of communication challenges and obstacles in primary care consultations. This included practical and relational challenges of organizing and using informal and formal interpreters and cultural understanding of illness and healthcare. Non-verbal and compassionate care aspects of communication emerged as an important factor in helping improve comfort and trust between healthcare providers (HCP) and refugees and asylum seekers during a healthcare encounter. Improvements at the systems level are needed to provide better access to professional interpreters, but also support compassionate and humanistic care by creating time for HCPs to build relationships and trust with patients.

ObjectivesRecent guideline changes for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention medication have resulted in calls to implement shared decision-making rather than arbitrary treatment thresholds. Less attention has been paid to existing tools that could facilitate this. Decision aids are well-established tools that enable shared decision-making and have been shown to improve CVD prevention adherence. However, it is unknown how many CVD decision aids are publicly available for patients online, what their quality is like and whether they are suitable for patients with lower health literacy, for whom the burden of CVD is greatest. This study aimed to identify and evaluate all English language, publicly available online CVD prevention decision aids.DesignSystematic review of public websites in August to November 2016 using an environmental scan methodology, with updated evaluation in April 2018. The decision aids were evaluated based on: (1) suitability for low health literacy populations (understandability, actionability and readability); and (2) International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS).Primary outcome measuresUnderstandability and actionability using the validated Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P scale), readability using Gunning–Fog and Flesch–Kincaid indices and quality using IPDAS V.3 and V.4.ResultsA total of 25 unique decision aids were identified. On the PEMAT-P scale, the decision aids scored well on understandability (mean 87%) but not on actionability (mean 61%). Readability was also higher than recommended levels (mean Gunning–Fog index=10.1; suitable for grade 10 students). Four decision aids met criteria to be considered a decision aid (ie, met IPDAS qualifying criteria) and one sufficiently minimised major bias (ie, met IPDAS certification criteria).ConclusionsPublicly available CVD prevention decision aids are not suitable for low literacy populations and only one met international standards for certification. Given that patients with lower health literacy are at increased risk of CVD, this urgently needs to be addressed.

There is increasing interest in shared decision making (SDM) in Australia. Question prompt lists (QPLs) support question asking by patients, a key part of SDM. QPLs have been studied in a variety of settings, and increasingly the internet provides a source of suggested questions for patients. Environmental scans have been shown to be useful in assessing the availability and quality of online SDM tools. This study aimed to assess the number and readability of QPLs available to users via Google.com.au. Our environmental scan used search terms derived from literature and reputable websites to search for QPLs available via Google.com.au. Following removal of duplicates from the 4000 URLs and 22 reputable sites, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to create a list of unique QPLs. A sample of 20 QPLs was further assessed for list length, proxy measures of quality such as a date of review, and evidence of doctor endorsement. Readability of the sample QPL instructions and QPLs themselves was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores. Our environmental scan identified 173 unique QPLs available to users. Lists ranged in length from 1 question to >200 questions. Of our sample, 50% (10/20) had a listed date of creation or update, and 60% (12/20) had evidence of authorship or source. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores for instructions were higher than for the QPLs (grades 10.3 and 7.7, respectively). There was over a 1 grade difference between QPLs from reputable sites compared with other sites (grades 4.2 and 5.4, respectively). People seeking questions to ask their doctor using Google.com.au encounter a vast number of question lists that they can use to prepare for consultations with their doctors. Markers of the quality or usefulness of various types of online QPLs, either surrogate or direct, have not yet been established, which makes it difficult to assess the value of the abundance of lists. Doctor endorsement of question asking has previously been shown to be an important factor in the effectiveness of QPLs, but information regarding this is not readily available online. Whether these diverse QPLs are endorsed by medical practitioners warrants further investigation.

Perceived knowledge gaps in general practice are not well documented but must be understood to ensure relevant and timely evidence for busy general practitioners (GPs) which reflects their diverse and changing needs. The aim of this study was to classify the types of questions submitted by Australian GPs to an evidence-based practice information service using established and inductive coding systems. We analysed 126 clinical questions submitted by 53 Australian GPs over a 1.5-year period. Questions were coded using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2 PLUS) and Ely and colleagues’ generic questions taxonomy by two independent coders. Inductive qualitative content analysis was also used to identify perceived knowledge gaps. Treatment (71%), diagnosis (15%) and epidemiology (9%) were the most common categories of questions. Using the ICPC-2 classification, questions were most commonly coded to the endocrine/metabolic and nutritional chapter heading, followed by general and unspecified, digestive and musculoskeletal. Seventy per cent of all questions related to the need to stay up-to-date with the evidence, or be informed about new tests or treatments (including complementary and alternative therapies). These findings suggest that current guideline formats for common clinical problems may not meet the knowledge demands of GPs and there is gap in access to evidence updates on new tests, treatments and complementary and alternative therapies. Better systems for ‘pulling’ real-time questions from GPs could better inform the ‘push’ of more relevant and timely evidence for use in the clinical encounter.