BackgroundIreland is heavily reliant on non-EU migrant health workers to staff its health system. Shortages of locally trained health workers and policies which facilitate health worker migration have contributed to this trend. This paper provides insight into the experiences of non-EU migrant doctors in the Irish health workforce.MethodIn-depth interviews were conducted with 37 non-EU migrant doctors in Ireland in 2011/2012.ResultsRespondents believed they had been recruited to fill junior hospital doctor ‘service’ posts. These posts are unpopular with locally trained doctors due to the limited career progression they provide. Respondents felt that their hopes for career progression and postgraduate training in Ireland had gone unrealised and that they were becoming de-skilled. As a result, most respondents were actively considering onward migration from Ireland.Discussion & conclusionsFailure to align the expectations of non-EU migrant doctors with the requirements of the health system has resulted in considerable frustration and a cycle of brain gain, waste and drain. The underlying reasons for high mobility into and out of the Irish medical workforce must be addressed if this cycle is to be broken. The heavy reliance on non-EU migrant doctors to staff the medical workforce has distracted from the underlying workforce challenges facing the Irish medical workforce.

Costs in the last year of life for patients in receipt of specialist palliative care are considerable. Where inpatient hospice care is available, there are potential savings in hospital costs to offset specialist palliative care inpatient costs. Informal care accounts for a high proportion of costs during the last year of life in each area, underlining the important role of informal caregivers in palliative care.

In the absence of a centralised register, it is not possible to track the number of GPs or practice nurses working in Ireland at present. This is despite the fact that there are twice as many general practice visits per annum compared to hospital visits.

The objective was to evaluate whether routine aspirin 75 mg is more cost-effective than the Fetal Medicine Foundation screen-and-treat approach for preeclampsia prevention in low-risk nulliparous women. A health economic decision analytical model was devised to estimate the discounted net health and cost outcomes of routine aspirin versus Fetal Medicine Foundation screening test–indicated aspirin for a cohort of 100 000 low-risk nulliparous women. Both strategies were compared with no intervention. A subanalysis also compared disaggregated components of the algorithm. The analysis used data from hospital administration, literature, and a randomized controlled trial. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of aspirin adherence, test cost, and accuracy on study results. Presumed rates of preeclampsia were 3.75% with no intervention versus 0.45% with aspirin use. Results found that routine aspirin was the preferred strategy, in terms of greater health gains and larger cost savings. It provided 163 quality-adjusted life-years relative to no intervention, whereas the screen-and-treat policy achieved 108 quality-adjusted life-years. Routine aspirin would result in an estimated cost saving of €14.9 million annually relative to no intervention, whereas screen-and-treat approach would result in a smaller cost saving of €3.1 million. When the analysis was extended to consider alternative screen-and-treat strategies, routine aspirin remained the optimally cost-effective approach. In conclusion, routine aspirin use in low-risk nulliparous women has a greater health gain and cost saving compared with both the Fetal Medicine Foundation and other screen-and-treat approaches.

There was no statistically or clinically significant benefit from the specialized physiotherapy compared to standard neck physiotherapy advice but further trials are warranted.

BackgroundInternational recruitment is a common strategy used by high-income countries to meet their medical workforce needs. Ireland, despite training sufficient doctors to meet its internal demand, continues to be heavily dependent on foreign-trained doctors, many of whom may migrate onwards to new destination countries. A cross-sectional study was conducted to measure and analyse the factors associated with the migratory intentions of foreign doctors in Ireland.MethodsA total of 366 non-European nationals registered as medical doctors in Ireland completed an online survey assessing their reasons for migrating to Ireland, their experiences whilst working and living in Ireland, and their future plans. Factors associated with future plans – whether to remain in Ireland, return home or migrate to a new destination country – were tested by bivariate and multivariate analyses, including discriminant analysis.ResultsOf the 345 foreign doctors who responded to the question regarding their future plans, 16 % of whom were Irish-trained, 30 % planned to remain in Ireland, 23 % planned to return home and 47 % to migrate onwards. Country of origin, personal and professional reasons for migrating, experiences of training and supervision, opportunities for career progression, type of employment contract, citizenship status, and satisfaction with life in Ireland were all factors statistically significantly associated with the three migratory outcomes.ConclusionReported plans may not result in enacted emigration. However, the findings support a growing body of evidence highlighting dissatisfaction with current career opportunities, contributing to the emigration of Irish doctors and onward migration of foreign doctors. Implementation of the WHO Global Code, which requires member states to train and retain their own health workforce, could also help reduce onward migration of foreign doctors to new destination countries. Ireland has initiated the provision of tailored postgraduate training to doctors from Pakistan, enabling these doctors to return home with improved skills of benefit to the source country.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12960-016-0121-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundResearch on health worker migration in the Irish context has categorized migrant health workers by country or region of training (for example, non-EU nurses or doctors) or recruitment mechanism (for example, actively recruited nurses). This paper applies a new typology of health worker migrants – livelihood, career-oriented, backpacker, commuter, undocumented and returner migrants (European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies and WHO, vol. 2:129-152, 2014) – to the experiences of non-EU migrant doctors in Ireland and tests its utility for understanding health worker migration internationally.MethodsThe paper draws on quantitative survey (N = 366) and qualitative interview (N = 37) data collected from non-EU migrant doctors in Ireland between 2011 and 2013.ResultsCategorizing non-EU migrant doctors in Ireland according to the typology (European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies and WHO, vol. 2:129-152, 2014) offers insight into their differing motivations, particularly on arrival. Findings suggest that the career-oriented migrant is the most common type of doctor among non-EU migrant doctor respondents, accounting for 60 % (N = 220) of quantitative and 54 % (N = 20) of qualitative respondents. The authors propose a modification to the typology via the addition of two additional categories – the family migrant and the safety and security migrant.ConclusionsEmploying a typology of health worker migration can facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the migrant medical workforce, a necessary prerequisite for the development of useful policy tools (European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies and WHO, vol. 2:129-152, 2014). The findings indicate that there is some fluidity between categories, as health worker motivations change over time. This indicates the potential for policy levers to influence migrant health worker decision-making, if they are sufficiently “tuned in” to migrant health worker motivation.

For patients with conditions commonly treated in dystonia clinics, switching from abobotulinumtoxinA to incobotulinumtoxinA, given at equivalent doses (~4:1 unit ratio) at similar intervals, was effective, well tolerated and achieved cost savings.