Implementation of the enhanced primary care items requires ongoing education and evaluation.

T. Blakeman, M. F. Harris, E. Comino, N. Zwar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the uptake and usage of the Federal Government's Enhanced Primary Care (EPC) items by general practitioners in outer urban general practice. METHOD: Faxed questionnaire with telephone follow up of a random sample of 347 GPs in South West Sydney, in March and April 2000. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 70.6%. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported they had heard of the EPC package and 27% of all the respondents had used one or more of the items. Twenty-three percent had claimed for health assessments (median number 3), 4.5% for care plans (median number 3) and 4% for case conferences (median number 1). Just under half of the GPs who had claimed for health assessments had conducted them in the patient's home. Most GPs either had no system for the use of the items or planned to use them opportunistically. Forty-nine percent of GPs had an age-sex register and those who did were more likely to have claimed for an EPC item and to have specific plans for their use. CONCLUSION: While most GPs had heard of the EPC items, only a minority had used them and few planned to use them systematically within their practice. There is a need to address barriers to the uptake of the EPC items and to provide greater support to GPs and health professionals involved with their implementation, especially for care plans and case conferences. Evaluation of the EPC items needs to be an integral part of the implementation process.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)75-77
Number of pages3
JournalAustralian Family Physician
Volume30
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Primary Health Care
Education
Health
Federal Government
Telephone
General Practice
General Practitioners
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

@article{bc97cdec21104ed6a9f82eba8a853bfc,
title = "Implementation of the enhanced primary care items requires ongoing education and evaluation.",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the uptake and usage of the Federal Government's Enhanced Primary Care (EPC) items by general practitioners in outer urban general practice. METHOD: Faxed questionnaire with telephone follow up of a random sample of 347 GPs in South West Sydney, in March and April 2000. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 70.6{\%}. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported they had heard of the EPC package and 27{\%} of all the respondents had used one or more of the items. Twenty-three percent had claimed for health assessments (median number 3), 4.5{\%} for care plans (median number 3) and 4{\%} for case conferences (median number 1). Just under half of the GPs who had claimed for health assessments had conducted them in the patient's home. Most GPs either had no system for the use of the items or planned to use them opportunistically. Forty-nine percent of GPs had an age-sex register and those who did were more likely to have claimed for an EPC item and to have specific plans for their use. CONCLUSION: While most GPs had heard of the EPC items, only a minority had used them and few planned to use them systematically within their practice. There is a need to address barriers to the uptake of the EPC items and to provide greater support to GPs and health professionals involved with their implementation, especially for care plans and case conferences. Evaluation of the EPC items needs to be an integral part of the implementation process.",
author = "T. Blakeman and Harris, {M. F.} and E. Comino and N. Zwar",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "75--77",
journal = "Australian Family Physician",
issn = "0300-8495",
publisher = "Royal Australian College of General Practitioners",
number = "1",

}

Implementation of the enhanced primary care items requires ongoing education and evaluation. / Blakeman, T.; Harris, M. F.; Comino, E.; Zwar, N.

In: Australian Family Physician, Vol. 30, No. 1, 01.01.2001, p. 75-77.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implementation of the enhanced primary care items requires ongoing education and evaluation.

AU - Blakeman, T.

AU - Harris, M. F.

AU - Comino, E.

AU - Zwar, N.

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the uptake and usage of the Federal Government's Enhanced Primary Care (EPC) items by general practitioners in outer urban general practice. METHOD: Faxed questionnaire with telephone follow up of a random sample of 347 GPs in South West Sydney, in March and April 2000. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 70.6%. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported they had heard of the EPC package and 27% of all the respondents had used one or more of the items. Twenty-three percent had claimed for health assessments (median number 3), 4.5% for care plans (median number 3) and 4% for case conferences (median number 1). Just under half of the GPs who had claimed for health assessments had conducted them in the patient's home. Most GPs either had no system for the use of the items or planned to use them opportunistically. Forty-nine percent of GPs had an age-sex register and those who did were more likely to have claimed for an EPC item and to have specific plans for their use. CONCLUSION: While most GPs had heard of the EPC items, only a minority had used them and few planned to use them systematically within their practice. There is a need to address barriers to the uptake of the EPC items and to provide greater support to GPs and health professionals involved with their implementation, especially for care plans and case conferences. Evaluation of the EPC items needs to be an integral part of the implementation process.

AB - OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the uptake and usage of the Federal Government's Enhanced Primary Care (EPC) items by general practitioners in outer urban general practice. METHOD: Faxed questionnaire with telephone follow up of a random sample of 347 GPs in South West Sydney, in March and April 2000. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 70.6%. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported they had heard of the EPC package and 27% of all the respondents had used one or more of the items. Twenty-three percent had claimed for health assessments (median number 3), 4.5% for care plans (median number 3) and 4% for case conferences (median number 1). Just under half of the GPs who had claimed for health assessments had conducted them in the patient's home. Most GPs either had no system for the use of the items or planned to use them opportunistically. Forty-nine percent of GPs had an age-sex register and those who did were more likely to have claimed for an EPC item and to have specific plans for their use. CONCLUSION: While most GPs had heard of the EPC items, only a minority had used them and few planned to use them systematically within their practice. There is a need to address barriers to the uptake of the EPC items and to provide greater support to GPs and health professionals involved with their implementation, especially for care plans and case conferences. Evaluation of the EPC items needs to be an integral part of the implementation process.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035221613&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 75

EP - 77

JO - Australian Family Physician

JF - Australian Family Physician

SN - 0300-8495

IS - 1

ER -