3.9 Article

Barriers and Facilitators to Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Australian Rural Health Services: A Pilot Study

期刊

GERIATRICS
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/geriatrics7020035

关键词

cognitive impairment; cognitive screening; older people; rural health

资金

  1. La Trobe University Research Focus Area-Building Healthy Communities [2000003074]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This qualitative pilot study examines the barriers and facilitators to cognitive screening for older people in rural and regional Victoria, Australia. The study highlights the importance of legislation, staff buy-in, clinical experience, appropriate training, and interorganisational relationships as key facilitators for screening. Additionally, collaborative implementation processes, time, and workloads were identified as considerations in a tertiary care setting.
Australian National standards recommend routine screening for all adults over 65 years by health organisations that provide care for patients with cognitive impairment. Despite this, screening rates are low and, when implemented, screening is often not done well. This qualitative pilot study investigates barriers and facilitators to cognitive screening for older people in rural and regional Victoria, Australia. Focus groups and interviews were undertaken with staff across two health services. Data were analysed via thematic analysis and contextualized within the i-PARIHS framework. Key facilitators of screening included legislation, staff buy-in, clinical experience, appropriate training, and interorganisational relationships. Collaborative implementation processes, time, and workloads were considerations in a recently accredited tertiary care setting. Lack of specialist services, familiarity with patients, and infrastructural issues may be barriers exacerbated in rural settings. In lieu of rural specialist services, interorganisational relationships should be leveraged to facilitate referring 'outwards' rather than 'upwards'.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据