Measuring the quality of allied health services in Australia: is it a case of &amp;ldquo;the more we learn, the less we know?&amp;rdquo;

Grimmer, Karen; Milanese, Steve; Kumar, Saravana

doi:10.2147/jhl.s33163

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that those occupations based more in the private sector work longer in their occupation points to links between retention and features of private practice, such as potentially an attractive salary, flexibility and greater control over one's career. While calls for more research into the causes of poor retention across much of allied health are not new, 1,7,27 this study adds weight to the need for more research in this area, but more particularly action to enhance retention, specifically in those occupations where it is low.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The real cost of training health professionals in Australia: it costs as much to build a dietician workforce as a dental workforce

Segal

Marsh

Heyes³

2016

J Health Serv Res Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWe explored the real cost of training the workforce in a range of primary health care professions in Australia with a focus on the impact of retention to contribute to the debate on how best to achieve the optimal health workforce mix.MethodsThe cost to train an entry-level health professional across 12 disciplines was derived from university fees, payment for clinical placements and, where relevant, cost of internship, adjusted for student drop-out. Census data were used to identify the number of qualified professionals working in their profession over a working life and to model expected years of practice by discipline. Data were combined to estimate the mean cost of training a health professional per year of service in their occupation.ResultsGeneral medical graduates were the most expensive to train at $451,000 per completing student and a mean cost of $18,400 per year of practice (expected 24.5 years in general practice), while dentistry also had a high training cost of $352,180 but an estimated costs of $11,140 per year of practice (based on an expected 31.6 years in practice). Training costs are similar for dieticians and podiatrists, but because of differential workforce retention (mean 14.9 vs 31.5 years), the cost of training per year of clinical practice is twice as high for dieticians ($10,300 vs. $5200), only 8% lower than that for dentistry.ConclusionsReturn on investment in training across professions is highly variable, with expected time in the profession as important as the direct training cost. These results can indicate where increased retention and/or attracting trained professionals to return to practice should be the focus of any supply expansion versus increasing the student cohort.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“… 4 – 6 A growing number of allied health graduates are entering expanding post-graduate medical programs. 6 , 7 While a valid pathway into medicine, this increases the effective cost of training the allied health workforce.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The real cost of training health professionals in Australia: it costs as much to build a dietician workforce as a dental workforce

Segal

Marsh

Heyes³

2016

J Health Serv Res Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst the outcome measures can be used longitudinally to measure change over time, they are mainly used just before and after the treatment. Furthermore, there is “ almost no research on the rate of change in outcome measures throughout the episodes of treatment or how much treatment is required to produce a valued outcome ” [ 19 ].…”

Section: Outcome Measurement Versus Process Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of “Process Evaluation” in Audiological Rehabilitation: Examples from Studies on Hearing Impairment

Manchaiah

Danermark

Rönnberg

et al. 2014

International Journal of Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main focus of this paper is to discuss the importance of “evaluating the process of change” (i.e., process evaluation) in people with disability by studying their lived experiences. Detailed discussion is made about “why and how to investigate the process of change in people with disability?” and some specific examples are provided from studies on patient journey of persons with hearing impairment (PHI) and their communication partners (CPs). In addition, methodological aspects in process evaluation are discussed in relation to various metatheoretical perspectives. The discussion has been supplemented with relevant literature. The healthcare practice and disability research in general are dominated by the use of outcome measures. Even though the values of outcome measures are not questioned, there seems to be a little focus on understanding the process of change over time in relation to health and disability. We suggest that the process evaluation has an additional temporal dimension and has applications in both clinical practice and research in relation to health and disability.

show abstract

“…Allied health services have been increasingly highlighted over the last five years as essential primary, sub-acute and tertiary services which could contribute significantly more to Australia’s healthcare system than they are currently doing [ 6 ]. Allied health is an umbrella term used to describe a range of health disciplines, other than medicine and nursing, which provide therapy, organisational and scientific services [ 6 ]. Commonly included under this umbrella are disciplines such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, podiatry, speech pathology, social work, dietetics and nutrition, psychology, audiology and psychology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is no agreed approach to measuring or monitoring allied health service performance. This appears to be, in part, due to the diversity of disciplines which fall under the allied health umbrella, the variability in roles and tasks these disciplines undertake, and lack of standard data items, data collection processes, and dedicated support systems to capture the range of services that allied health provides [ 6 ]. Therefore, it is clear that there is no ‘one size’ fits all approach that can be used to measure allied health service performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assisting allied health in performance evaluation: a systematic review

Lizarondo

Grimmer

Kumar

2014

BMC Health Serv Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPerformance evaluation raises several challenges to allied health practitioners and there is no agreed approach to measuring or monitoring allied health service performance. The aim of this review was to examine the literature on performance evaluation in healthcare to assist in the establishment of a framework that can guide the measurement and evaluation of allied health clinical service performance. This review determined the core elements of a performance evaluation system, tools for evaluating performance, and barriers to the implementation of performance evaluation.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Five electronic databases were used to search for relevant articles: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Academic Search Premier. Articles which focussed on any allied health performance evaluation or those which examined performance in health care in general were considered in the review. Content analysis was used to synthesise the findings from individual articles.ResultsA total of 37 articles were included in the review. The literature suggests there are core elements involved in performance evaluation which include prioritising clinical areas for measurement, setting goals, selecting performance measures, identifying sources of feedback, undertaking performance measurement, and reporting the results to relevant stakeholders. The literature describes performance evaluation as multi-dimensional, requiring information or data from more than one perspective to provide a rich assessment of performance. A range of tools or instruments are available to capture various perspectives and gather a comprehensive picture of health care quality.ConclusionsEvery allied health care delivery system has different performance needs and will therefore require different approaches. However, there are core processes that can be used as a framework to evaluate allied health performance. A careful examination of barriers to performance evaluation and subsequent tailoring of strategies to overcome these barriers should be undertaken to achieve the aims of performance evaluation. The findings of this review should inform the development of a standardised framework that can be used to measure and evaluate allied health performance. Future research should explore the utility and overall impact of such framework in allied health service delivery.

show abstract

Measuring the quality of allied health services in Australia: is it a case of “the more we learn, the less we know?”

Cited by 6 publications

References 45 publications

The real cost of training health professionals in Australia: it costs as much to build a dietician workforce as a dental workforce

The real cost of training health professionals in Australia: it costs as much to build a dietician workforce as a dental workforce

Importance of “Process Evaluation” in Audiological Rehabilitation: Examples from Studies on Hearing Impairment

Assisting allied health in performance evaluation: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About