In Australia, self-management predominantly refers to education programmes that, theoretically, equip people with chronic disease with the necessary information and skills to manage their own healthcare, maintain optimal health, and minimize the consequences of their condition. These programmes are designed, and often delivered, by practitioners. Our research has demonstrated that for consumers, self-management involves navigating and responding to a myriad of information sources and experiences, many of which originate in their own lived bodily experiences and personal knowledge. In contrast to this organic and dynamic version of self-managing that is naturally practised by consumers, common practitioner and policy representations of self-management tend to discount consumer agency and overlook the daily ways in which people manage their own body, experiences and health choices. We argue that if the self-management movement is to tackle health inequalities (rather than creating new ones), health professionals and policy-makers must examine the potentially damaging assumptions that are inherent in contemporary self-management discourse.

The influence of subjective processes on the development of identity highlights the inadequacy of fragmented approaches when exploring the individual experience. Findings from this study have important implications for the delivery of person-focused rehabilitation and remind one to consider with caution the usual indicators of adjustment that are often applied to brain injury rehabilitation.

Research in the area of preventable hospitalization, hospital admissions that could otherwise be avoided, provides little guidance in terms of priority areas for change. This synthesis of multiple electronic databases searched systematically for studies related to preventable hospitalization identifies six priority areas for future action in three broad conceptual areas: person priorities (symptom management and supportive relationships), programme priorities (self-management supports and service delivery), and place priorities (local infrastructure and socio-economic opportunities). Attention to these priorities could help reduce preventable hospitalization while simultaneously improving health access and quality of care.

People with complex chronic conditions frequently need to navigate their own way through and around a fragmented and siloed health care system. Care coordination is a defining principle of primary care and is frequently proposed as a solution to this problem. However, care coordination requires more time and effort than primary care physicians alone have the capacity to deliver. Although registered nurses (RNs) are skilled team members who can be included in the delivery of coordinated patient care, any model of care coordination that involves RNs needs to fit within the existing health care delivery system. In this study, which used qualitative techniques based on grounded theory and included face-to-face interviews and open coding and theoretical sampling until data saturation was achieved, and which was one component of a larger action research study, we aimed to gain an understanding of the difference between usual chronic condition care and the work of chronic condition care coordination. The researchers interviewed general practitioners and RNs from various general practice sites who were actively coordinating care. Four unique processes were found to define care coordination implementation, namely: (1) moving beyond usual practice by spanning boundaries; (2) relationship-based care; (3) agreed roles and routines among relevant parties; and (4) committing to chronic condition care coordination. The findings suggested that existing professional and organisational cultures required negotiation before care coordination could be integrated into existing contexts. The challenge, however, seems to be in acknowledging and overcoming professional practice boundaries that define existing care through reflective practice and shared resourcing.

The healthcare system in Australia is struggling to meet the healthcare needs of the ageing population. The pressure on health systems to solve these complex problems can create a sense of urgency to find a panacea in concepts such as coordinated care. A common understanding of coordinated care is often assumed when, in reality, the concept is neither clearly defined nor completely understood. The purpose of this review was to examine and identify the attributes of coordinated care to facilitate a shared definition of this concept within the primary care context. The study was a conceptual review of the literature relating to coordinated care in chronic disease. Two key electronic databases (MEDLINE and CINAHL) were searched using terms generated by a panel of primary healthcare practitioners and researchers. Following the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 20 studies were selected from an initial pool of 128. Several key attributes of coordinated care were identified together with a definitional statement. Coordinated care in the primary healthcare setting can be broadly defined as the delivery of systematic, responsive and supportive care to people with complex chronic care needs. It relies heavily on complicated concepts such as partnerships, networking, collaboration, knowledge transfer, person-centred practice and self-management support. The expression of these concepts in the literature was relatively superficial, with little discussion of the actual practices that might be implemented in order to enact them. This paper provides a framework of coordinated care within the primary care setting that can guide future work around implementation and evaluation.