Toni Ashton

Community-based primary health care describes a model of service provision that is oriented to the population health needs and wants of service users and communities, and has particular relevance to supporting the growing proportion of the population with multiple chronic conditions. Internationally, aspirations for community-based primary health care have stimulated local initiatives and influenced the design of policy solutions. However, the ways in which these ideas and influences find their way into policy and practice is strongly mediated by policy settings and institutional legacies of particular jurisdictions. This paper seeks to compare the key institutional and policy features of Ontario, Québec and New Zealand that shape the 'space available' for models of community-based primary health care to take root and develop. Our analysis suggests that two key conditions are the integration of relevant health and social sector organisations, and the range of policy levers that are available and used by governments. New Zealand has the most favourable conditions, and Ontario the least favourable. All jurisdictions, however, share a crucial barrier, namely the 'barbed-wire fence' that separates funding of medical and 'non-medical' primary care services, and the clear interests primary care doctors have in maintaining this fence. Moves in the direction of system-wide community-based primary health care require a gradual dismantling of this fence.

Reports of how different countries are responding to the need to develop more integrated health and social care services for older adults can provide useful lessons for other health systems. However an understanding of how the wider structural, political, economic and cultural context affects implementation of these models of care is essential when considering the potential for models to be scaled up or transferred to other jurisdictions.

International and national bodies promote interdisciplinary care in the management of people with chronic conditions. We examine one facilitative factor in this team-based approach - the co-location of non-physician disciplines within the primary care practice. We used survey data from 330 General Practices in Ontario, Canada and New Zealand, as a part of a multinational study using The Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) surveys. Logistic and linear multivariable regression models were employed to examine the association between the number of disciplines working within the practice, and the capacity of the practice to offer specialized and preventive care for patients with chronic conditions. We found that as the number of non-physicians increased, so did the availability of special sessions/clinics for patients with diabetes (odds ratio 1.43, 1.25–1.65), hypertension (1.20, 1.03–1.39), and the elderly (1.22, 1.05–1.42). Co-location was also associated with the provision of disease management programs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and asthma; the equipment available in the centre; and the extent of nursing services. The care of people with chronic disease is the ‘challenge of the century’. Co-location of practitioners may improve access to services and equipment that aid chronic disease management.

This paper considers approaches to the question “Which long-term care facilities have residents with high use of acute hospitalisations?” It compares four methods of identifying long-term care facilities with high use of acute hospitalisations by demonstrating four selection methods, identifies key factors to be resolved when deciding which methods to employ, and discusses their appropriateness for different research questions.

Factors which contribute to hospitalization of nursing home residents are multiple and complex. They include dimensions of the policy setting as well as patient management practices. In seeking interventions to reduce such hospitalizations, most research has focussed on changing patient management. But provider reimbursement policies may also influence the decision to hospitalize nursing home residents. This includes payments to hospitals and general practitioners as well as to the nursing homes themselves. Differences in payment methods may mean that interventions that work well in one setting do not work well in another.

As in many countries, medical and surgical specialists in New Zealand have the opportunity of working in the public sector, the private sector or both. This study aimed to explore the level and sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction of specialists in New Zealand with working in the two sectors. Such information can assist workforce planning, management and policy and may inform the wider debate about the relationship between the two sectors. A postal survey was conducted of 1983 registered specialists throughout New Zealand. Respondents were asked to assess 14 sources of satisfaction and 9 sources of dissatisfaction according to a 5-point Likert scale. Means and standard deviations were calculated for the total sample, and for procedural and non-procedural specialties. Differences between the means of each source of satisfaction and dissatisfaction were also calculated. Completed surveys were received from 943 specialists (47% response rate). Overall mean levels of satisfaction were higher in the private sector than the public sector while levels of dissatisfaction were lower. While the public system is valued for its opportunities for further education and professional development, key sources of dissatisfaction are workload pressures, mentally demanding work and managerial interference. In the private sector specialists value the opportunity to work independently and apply their own ideas in the workplace. Sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction amongst specialists are different for the public and private sectors. Allowing specialists more freedom to work independently and to apply their own ideas in the workplace may enhance recruitment and retention of specialists in the public health system.