This constructivist grounded theory study aimed to (1) explore patients’ experiences of and roles in interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care and (2) consider the relevance and alignment of an existing theoretical framework on patients’ roles and based on the experiences of patient advocates.

High-quality management of chronic conditions requires an interprofessional collaborative practice model of care considering an individual’s mental, physical, and social health situation. Patients’ experiences of this model in the primary care setting are relatively unknown.

A constructivist grounded theory approach was taken. Interview data were collected from primary care patients with chronic conditions across Australia in August 2020 – February 2022. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed by (1) initial line-by-line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) memo writing, (4) categorisation, and (5) theme and sub-theme development. Themes and sub-themes were mapped against an existing theoretical framework to expand and confirm the results from a previous study with a similar research aim.

Twenty adults with chronic conditions spanning physical disability, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune, and mental health conditions participated. Two themes were developed: (1) Adapting to Change with two sub-themes describing how patients adapt to interprofessional team care and (2) Shifting across the spectrum of roles, with five sub-themes outlining the roles patients enact while receiving care. The findings suggest that patients’ roles are highly variable and fluid in interprofessional collaborative practice, and further work is recommended to develop a resource to support greater patient engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice.

In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, healthcare workers experienced significant distress. At the same time, concern for the safety and well-being of employees remained important priorities to ensure the quality of care for children with mental illness.

To study the specifics of the experience of the Covid-19 pandemic among employees of a children’s psychiatric clinic, highlight the existing among them attitudes about the pandemic and form administrative decisions to improve the quality of care for children.

380 employees voluntarily took part in the study (group 1 (G1): 115 people who worked directly with Covid-19 and group 2 (G2): 265 people without this experience) from 05/18/2020 to 05/20/2020. The author’s questionnaire included the following blocks: 1) attitude towards patients and colleagues; 2) emotional experiences; 3) ways of coping; 4) social support; 4) finance.

The main motive when deciding to work with Covid-19 was the motive of professional duty (25.4% of participants). There are a number of significant differences between group 1 and group 2: participants in G1 are characterized by denial of special experiences associated with Covid-19, seeking help from colleagues in difficult working conditions, reliance on family members and a positive vision of administrative decisions significantly more than participants G2. Relatives of G1 participants are less concerned about their future and health.

The personnel decisions made on the basis of the research allowed the clinic’s team to provide quality care to children and families throughout the pandemic.

This study aimed to investigate the association between professional characteristics and the prevalence of advance directives among palliative care professionals.

This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. A diverse sample of 327 healthcare professionals completed an online survey investigating demographic variables, length of time working in palliative care, post-graduate qualifications in palliative care, and development of their own advance directives.

The prevalence of advance directives among professionals working in palliative care was associated with factors such as higher academic qualifications, holding a post-graduate qualification in palliative care, and working in palliative care for a longer time. Furthermore, psychologists were most likely to have registered their own advance directives, compared with other healthcare professionals.

Post-graduate palliative care education and professional experience in this area appear to be important factors associated with palliative care professionals writing of their own advance directives. However, our study suggests that just being involved in or familiar with the context of palliative and end-of-life care does not guarantee that health professionals register their advance directives.

In clinical palliative cancer care, the diversity of patient concerns over time makes information provision a critical issue, the demands of information-seeking patients presenting a challenge to both the communicative and organizational skills of the health provider. This study puts forward a practice model for communication between patients, their family members, and professional health providers during ongoing palliative chemotherapy; a model which supports the providers in enabling person-centered communication.

A constant comparative analysis adapted to participatory action research was applied. The model was developed step-wise in three interrelated cycles, with results from previous studies from palliative cancer care processed in relation to professional health providers' experience-based clinical knowledge. In doing this, focus group discussions were carried out with providers and patients to develop and revise the model.

The Enabling Sense Making model for person-centered communication gave rise to three domains (which are also the major communicative actors in palliative care): the patient, the family, and the provider. These actors were placed in the context of a communicative arena. The three respective domains were built up in different layers discriminating between significant aspects of person-centered communication, from the manifest that is most usually explicated in dialogues, to the latent that tends to be implicitly mediated.

The model intends to facilitate timely reorientation of care from curative treatment or rehabilitation to palliation, as well as the introduction of appropriate palliative interventions over time during palliative phases. In this way the model is to be regarded a frame for directing the awareness of the professionals, which focuses on how to communicate and how to consider the patient’s way of reasoning. The model could be used as a complement to other strategic initiatives for the advancement of palliative care communication. It needs to be further evaluated in regard to practice evidence.

The efficacy of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) is well established in the USA, and to a lesser extent in Australia, whereas UK studies suggest little advantage for ACT over usual care. Implementation of ACT varies and these differences may explain variability in reported efficacy. We aimed to investigate differences in ACT implementation between Melbourne, Australia and London, UK.

In a cross-sectional survey, we investigated team organisation, staff and client characteristics from four Melbourne ACT teams using almost identical methods to the Pan London Assertive Outreach studies of 24 ACT teams.

Client characteristics, staff satisfaction and burnout were very similar. Three of four Melbourne teams made over 70% of client contacts ‘in vivo’ compared to only one-third of comparable London teams, although all teams were rated as ‘ACT-like’. Melbourne teams scored more highly on team approach. Three quarters of clients were admitted in the preceding 2 years but Melbourne clients had shorter stays.

Differences in the implementation of ‘active components’ of home treatment models that have been associated with better client outcomes (home visiting, team approach) may explain international differences in ACT efficacy. Existing fidelity measures may not adequately weight these important elements of the model.