A Qualitative Study of Rural and Remote Australian General Practitioners’ Involvement in High-Acuity Patients

Abstract

This study aimed to understand the experiences, barriers, and facilitators of rural general practitioners’ involvement with high-acuity patients. Semi-structured interviews with rural general practitioners in South Australia who had experience delivering high-acuity care were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through content and thematic approaches incorporating Potter and Brough’s capacity-building framework. Eighteen interviews were conducted. Barriers identified include the inability to avoid high-acuity work in rural and remote areas, pressure to handle complex presentations, lack of appropriate resources, lack of mental health support for clinicians, and impacts on social life. Enablers included a commitment to community, comradery in rural medicine, training, and experience. We concluded that general practitioners are a vital pillar of rural health service delivery and are inevitably involved in disaster and emergency response. While the involvement of rural general practitioners with high-acuity patients is complex, this study suggested that with the appropriate system, structure and role supports, rural general practitioners could be better empowered to manage high-acuity caseloads locally.

Barriers and Facilitators to Point-of-Care Ultrasound Use in Rural Australia

“…Even a modest reduction in patient transfers has the potential to result in significant savings for both individual patients and the healthcare system. As another incentive, research on attracting and retaining a rural workforce identified that clinical support was a significant factor for junior doctors [17,18]. Ensuring that rural locations are well equipped with POCUS as a diagnostic tool may help provide additional support for junior doctors, thus helping to address rural workforce issues.…”

Healthcare Decision-Making in a Crisis: A Qualitative Systemic Review Protocol

“…Other than the negatives from the pandemic response, some positives do emerge. Tese include the improved uptake of virtual healthcare [17], expanded and extended scope of health professional practice [18][19][20][21], appropriate planning and resourcing of essential services [22,23], the importance of engaging with consumers, and appropriate culturally and linguistical public health approaches to underserviced communities [24][25][26][27][28]. Troughout the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid systematic reviews were conducted to synthesize evidence to inform the decision-making by public leaders.…”