Objective To inform local, state and national strategies intended to reduce demand for ED care, the present study aimed to identify key factors influencing the current provision of acute care within primary healthcare (PHC) and explore the policy and system changes potentially required. Methods Semi‐structured interviews with key stakeholders were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed through content and thematic approaches incorporating the Walt and Gilson health policy framework. Results Eleven interviews were conducted. Five key considerations were highlighted, namely the barriers and enablers for general practitioners (GPs) in providing acute care, barriers to patient use of PHC instead of ED, suggestions for new PHC models and improvements for current ED models. Additionally, economic issues relating to clinic funding and GP remuneration, complexities of state or federal funding and management of urgent care centres (UCC) were identified. Potential policy changes included GP clinics incorporating emergency appointments, GP triage, further patient streaming and changes to the ED medical workforce model, as well as linking hospitals with PHC clinics. Suggested system changes included improving rapid access to non‐GP specialists, offering qualifications for urgent care within PHC, developing integrated information technology systems and educating patients regarding appropriate healthcare system pathways. Conclusion The present study suggested that while PHC has the potential to attenuate the demands for ED services, a whole‐of‐system approach focusing on realignment of priorities and integrated changes are needed.

Objective: This scoping review aims to map the roles of rural and remote primary health care professionals (PHCPs) during disasters. Introduction: Disasters can have catastrophic impacts on society and are broadly classified into natural events, man-made incidents, or a mixture of both. The PHCPs working in rural and remote communities face additional challenges when dealing with disasters and have significant roles during the Prevention, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery (PPRR) stages of disaster management. Methods: A Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology was utilized, and the search was conducted over seven electronic databases according to a priori protocol. Results: Forty-one papers were included and sixty-one roles were identified across the four stages of disaster management. The majority of disasters described within the literature were natural events and pandemics. Before a disaster occurs, PHCPs can build individual resilience through education. As recognized and respected leaders within their community, PHCPs are invaluable in assisting with disaster preparedness through being involved in organizations’ planning policies and contributing to natural disaster and pandemic surveillance. Key roles during the response stage include accommodating patient surge, triage, maintaining the health of the remaining population, instituting infection control, and ensuring a team-based approach to mental health care during the disaster. In the aftermath and recovery stage, rural and remote PHCPs provide long-term follow up, assisting patients in accessing post-disaster support including delivery of mental health care. Conclusion: Rural and remote PHCPs play significant roles within their community throughout the continuum of disaster management. As a consequence of their flexible scope of practice, PHCPs are well-placed to be involved during all stages of disaster, from building of community resilience and contributing to early alert of pandemics, to participating in the direct response when a disaster occurs and leading the way to recovery.

In 2017, 335 natural disasters affected over 95.6 million people, killing an additional 9,697 and costing a total of US $335 billion. This burden was not shared equally, as Asia seemed to be the most vulnerable continent for floods and storms, with 44% of all disaster events, 58% of the total deaths, and 70% of the total people affected. Despite this, the Americas reported the highest economic losses, representing 88% of the total cost from 93 disasters. China, U.S., and India were the hardest hit countries in terms of occurrence with 25, 20, and 15 events respectively. Given the large land mass of each country, these results are not surprising.