Small-scale rural pilot programs in chronic illness management - what next?
PW Harve y, PD Mill s, G Misa n and K Warre n
Australian Journal of Primary Health
9(3) 114 - 118
Published: 2003
Abstract
In recent years, rural SA has been the recipient of significant funding to support a range of new primary health care initiatives. Much of this funding, additional to normal recurrent budgets in our health system, has facilitated effective change and development through demonstration and research projects across the state. The resultant work involves programs such as: ? coordinated care trials (COAG) ? more allied health services (MAHS) ? Commonwealth regional health service initiatives (CRHS) ? quality use of medicines (QUM) ? community packages for aged care services ? Indigenous chronic disease self-management pilot programs (CDSM) ? chronic disease self-management (CDSM) programs - Sharing Health Care SA ? chronic disease self-management (CDSM) programs in Indigenous communities. In addition to the resources listed above, funding was also provided by the Commonwealth to establish the South Australian Centre for Rural and Remote Health (SACRRH) and develop the University Department of Rural Health in Whyalla. While this new funding has led to substantial developmental work in chronic illness management in particular, one needs to ask whether the time might not be right now for these hitherto small-scale change initiatives to be transformed into ongoing mainstream programs, informed and guided by research outcomes to date. Is it time to move beyond tentative chronic illness programs and into mainstream reform? We have shown that there is much to be gained, both for patients and for the system, from improved coordination of primary care services and initiatives such as self-management programs for patients with chronic conditions. Better management leads to improved patient health outcomes and can reduce demand for unplanned hospital and emergency services. Many admissions to rural hospitals requiring expensive services, in terms of infrastructure and staffing, could be either prevented, or patients could be managed more effectively in the community as part of a wider primary health care program.https://doi.org/10.1071/PY03034
© La Trobe University 2003