4.2 Article

Quality in Australian after-hours doctor home visits: exploring the clinical, professional and security supports available to involved practitioners

Journal

JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 308-315

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jep.12605

Keywords

after-hours; clinical; family doctors; general practice; professional; security; support

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale, aims and objectives The after-hours house call (AHHC) services in Australia has gained huge popularity in recent years, but it is not clear how well supported the involved doctors feel regarding the clinical, professional and security aspects of their work. It is important that this knowledge gap is filled given that appropriate support helps engender quality in health service delivery. Methods This is a questionnaire-based electronic survey involving a sample frame of all 300 doctors participating in AHHC through the National Home Doctor Service. National Home Doctor Service is Australia's largest AHHC service provider. Results A total of 168 valid responses (56.0%) were received. Overall, the mean support levels were mild to moderate, ranging from 2.4 to 2.8 out of 4.0 for all three parameters. Specifically, 65.3% of the respondents felt well-supported on clinical issues, 64.7% on professional issues and 43.2% on security issues. Australian-trained doctors were less likely to feel well supported on all aspects [Clinical: odds ratio (OR) 0.38, confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.90; Professional: OR 0.30, CI 0.13 to 0.72; and Security: OR 0.22; CI 0.09 to 0.53] compared with overseas-trained ones. Unsurprisingly, doctors who adopted protective measures felt significantly better supported regarding security (OR 2.75; CI 1.31 to 5.78). ConclusionThere is room for improvement regarding support on AHHC in Australia, and concerned Surgeries should ensure that where available these supports are appropriately utilized.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available