Search results

The scale of current demand on primary care services from people seeking help with common mental health problems places enormous pressure on the existing front line workers in general practice. The paucity of training opportunities and competing pressures to deliver improved services across a range of general practice targets remains a major challenge for primary care professionals. The impact of government policy, to improve both access to and choice of treatments, has raised public expectations.The commissioning of the graduate workforce, the graduate worker in primary care mental health (GWPCMH), commenced in 2002, in response to the publication of target numbers detailed in the Priorities and Planning Framework, (DoH, 2002). It signalled a determination to expand the workforce provision and improve the quality of care for service users with common mental health problems.This paper examines the scale of common mental health problems, the policy response and the commissioning process. Particular attention is given to examining the barriers that have been shown to affect implementation, identifying the key influencers and the resources required to train these workers.

Given that the workforce constitutes a principal resource of primary care, appraisal of models of care requires thorough investigation of the health workforce in all Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) countries. This chapter explores this in terms of workforce composition, remuneration, qualifications and training in relation to the needs of children and young people. We have focused on two principal disciplines of primary care; medicine and nursing, with a specific focus on training and skills to care for children in primary care, particularly those with complex care needs, adolescents and vulnerable groups. We found significant disparities in workforce provision and remuneration, in training curricula and in resultant skills of physicians and nurses in European Union and European Economic Area Countries. A lack of overarching standards and recognition of some of the specific needs of children reflected in training of physicians and nurses may lead to suboptimal care for children. There are, of course, many other professions that also contribute to primary care services for children, some of which are discussed in Chapter 15, but we have not had resources to study these to the same detail.

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain primary care advanced clinical practitioners’ (ACP) perceptions and experiences of what factors influence the development and identity of ACP roles, and how development of ACP roles that align with Health Education England’s capability framework for advanced clinical practice can be facilitated in primary care.

The study was located in the North of England. A qualitative approach was used in which 22 staff working in primary care who perceived themselves to be working as ACPs were interviewed. Data analysis was guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phase method.

Five themes emerged from the data – the need for: a standardised role definition and inclusive localised registration; access to/availability of quality accredited educational programmes relevant to primary care and professional development opportunities at the appropriate level; access to/availability of support and supervision for ACPs and trainee ACPs; a supportive organisational infrastructure and culture; and a clear career pathway.

Findings have led to the generation of the Whole System Workforce Framework of INfluencing FACTors (IN FACT), which lays out the issues that need to be addressed if ACP capability is to be maximised in primary care. This paper offers suggestions about how IN FACT can be addressed.

While one-third of Australians live outside major cities, there are ongoing challenges in providing accessible, sustainable, and appropriate primary health care services in rural and remote communities. The purpose of this paper is to explore a partnership approach to understanding and addressing complex primary health workforce issues in the western region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

The authors describe how a collaboration of five organisations worked together to engage a broader group of stakeholders and secure commitment and resources for a regional approach to address workforce challenges in Western NSW. A literature review and formal interviews with stakeholders gathered knowledge, identified issues and informed the overarching approach, including the development of the Western NSW Partnership Model and Primary Health Workforce Planning Framework. A stakeholder forum tested the proposed approach and gained endorsement for a collaborative priority action plan.

The Western NSW Partnership Model successfully engaged regional stakeholders and guided the development of a collaborative approach to building a sustainable primary health workforce for the future.

Given the scarcity of literature about effective partnerships approaches to address rural health workforce challenges, this paper contributes to an understanding of how to build sustainable partnerships to positively impact on the rural health workforce. This approach is replicable and potentially valuable elsewhere in NSW, other parts of Australia and internationally.

The 30 MOCHA (Models of Child Health Appraised) countries are diverse socially, culturally and economically, and differences exist in their healthcare systems and in the scope and role of primary care. An economic analysis was undertaken that sought to explain differences in child health outcomes between countries. The conceptual framework was that of a production function for health, whereby health outputs (or outcomes) are assumed affected by several ‘inputs’. In the case of health, inputs include personal (genes, health behaviours) and socio-economic (income, living standards) factors and the structure, organisation and workforce of the healthcare system. Random effects regression modelling was used, based on countries as the unit of analysis, with data from 2004 to 2016 from international sources and published categorisations of healthcare system. The chapter describes the data deficiencies and measurement conundrums faced, and how these were addressed. In the absence of consistent indicators of child health outcomes across countries, five mortality measures were used: neonatal, infant, under five years, diabetes (0–19 years) and epilepsy (0–19 years). Factors found associated with reductions in mortality were as follows: gross domestic product per capita growth (neonatal, infant, under five years), higher density of paediatricians (neonatal, infant, under five years), less out-of-pocket expenditure (neonatal, diabetes 0–19), state-based service provision (epilepsy 0–19) and lower proportions of children in the population, a proxy for family size (all outcomes). Findings should be interpreted with caution due to the ecological nature of the analysis and the limitations presented by the data and measures employed.

The Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project identified the different models of primary care that exist for children, examined the particular attributes that might be different from those directed at adults and considered how these models might be appraised. The project took the multiple and interrelated dimensions of primary care and simplified them into a conceptual framework for appraisal. A general description of the models in existence in all 30 countries of the EU and EEA countries, focusing on lead practitioner, financial and regulatory and service provision classifications, was created. We then used the WHO ‘building blocks’ for high-performing health systems as a starting point for identifying a good system for children. The building blocks encompass safe and good quality services from an educated and empowered workforce, providing good data systems, access to all necessary medical products, prevention and treatments, and a service that is adequately financed and well led. An extensive search of the literature failed to identify a suitable appraisal framework for MOCHA, because none of the frameworks focused on child primary care in its own right. This led the research team to devise an alternative conceptualisation, at the heart of which is the core theme of child centricity and ecology, and the need to focus on delivery to the child through the life course. The MOCHA model also focuses on the primary care team and the societal and environmental context of the primary care system.

This study aims to scope the profile and application of an advanced clinical practitioner (ACP) roles in primary care in the North of England and how these roles meet the requirements of Health Education England's (HEE’s) ACP workforce capability framework.

A two-stage design was used. Stage 1 analysed health and social care workforce intelligence reports to inform scoping of numbers of ACPs working in primary care. Stage 2 used two surveys. Survey 1 targeted ACP leads and collected strategic-level data about ACP application. Survey 2 targeted staff who perceived themselves to be working as ACPs. Survey 2 was in three parts. Part 1 collected demographic data. Part 2 required participants to record their perceived competence against each of the HEE ACP framework capability criteria. Part 3 required respondents to identify facilitators and barriers to ACP practice.

Despite the introduction of HEE's ACP capability framework, there is inconsistency and confusion about the ACP role. The results indicated a need for standardisation of role definition and educational and practice requirements. The results also suggested that some ACPs are not working to their full potential, while some staff who are employed as “gap-fillers” to provide routine clinical services perceive themselves as ACPs despite not working at the ACP level.

Although previous research has explored the application of ACP practice in primary care, few studies have considered ACP application in the light of the introduction of workforce capability frameworks aimed at standardising ACP practice.

The paper seeks to show that the new General Medical Services (GMS) contract will provide opportunities for NHS staff to enhance their roles, so it is important that adequate training assessment and quality control systems are set in place. This paper assesses the implications for NHS staff in primary care.

In this paper a review of policy documents was undertaken.

The paper finds that enhanced services set out in the new GMS contract may be provided by primary care organisations and healthcare professionals other than those located in general practitioner (GP) practices. As nurses and other healthcare professionals take on tasks previously conducted by GPs, so GPs will take on more consultant tasks previously confined to secondary care. Personal Medical Services (PMS) and GMS are converging in their contractual obligations and the opportunities offered to staff. As well as General Practitioners with Special Interests (GPwSIs), Practitioners with Special Interests (PwSIs) are important developments, which could promote recruitment and retention in the nursing and allied health professional workforce. Nurses and other healthcare professionals will be the main source of staffing for services shifted from secondary care.

The paper shows that it will be important to identify whether these professionals can substitute for GPs, the boundaries to that substitution, and whether recruitment and retention are enhanced. Training for GPwSIs and PwSIs will be introduced or expanded but also needs accreditation and validation.

The paper provides an overview of the implications of the new GMS contract for nurses and other NHS professionals.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and describe the international and New Zealand (NZ) evidence for models of integrated ambulatory care and describe key implementation issues and lessons learnt.

A scoping review was conducted for published and grey literature on integrated care. Publications from 2000 to February 2019 that described integrated ambulatory care were included.

A total of 34 articles were included. Internationally and in NZ, the most common models of integrated care found were: transfer, relocation and joint working. The international literature showed that transferring care from hospitals to community and other integrated models of care between the primary–specialist interface increased access and convenience for patients. However, there was insufficient evidence of clinical and economic outcomes. Very few NZ-based studies reported on effectiveness of models of care. Key implementation issues were: no viable and sustainable funding, lack of infrastructure, lack of confidence, trust and communication between providers, increased workload and time and knowledge and skills gap to perform new roles. The NZ literature highlighted the need for an appropriate location for services, committed leadership, development of a governance group representing different provider groups, strong communication mechanisms, new workforce skills and overall change management.

The review provides an overview of key components of integrated care models in ambulatory settings and identifies some common elements across the models of care. The findings can inform the design and implementation of integrated ambulatory care in health systems.