Connect
MJA
MJA

Multidisciplinary Team Care Arrangements in the management of patients with chronic disease in Australian general practice

Mark F Harris, Upali W Jayasinghe, Jane R Taggart, Bettina Christl, Judith G Proudfoot, Patrick A Crookes, Justin J Beilby and Gawaine Powell Davies
Med J Aust 2011; 194 (5): 236-239.

Summary

Objective: To explore factors associated with the frequency of multidisciplinary Team Care Arrangements (TCAs) and the impact of TCAs on patient-assessed quality of care in Australian general practice.

Design and setting: Data were collected as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in 60 general practices in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria between July 2006 and June 2008. Multilevel logistic regression analysis evaluated factors associated with the frequency of TCAs recorded in the 12 months after baseline, and multilevel multivariable analysis examined the association between TCAs and patient-assessed quality of chronic illness care, adjusted for patient and practice characteristics.

Main outcome measures: Frequency of TCAs; Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) scores.

Results: Of 1752 patients with clinical audit data available at 12-month follow-up, 398 (22.7%) had a TCA put in place since baseline. Women, patients with two or more chronic conditions, and patients from metropolitan areas had an increased probability of having a TCA. There was an association between TCAs and practices with solo general practitioners and those with greater levels of teamwork involving non-GP staff for the control group but not the intervention group. Patients who had a TCA self-assessed their quality of care (measured by PACIC scores) to be higher than those who did not.

Conclusions: Findings were consistent with the purpose of TCAs — to provide multidisciplinary care for patients with longer-term complex conditions. Significant barriers to TCA use remain, especially in rural areas and for men, and these may be more challenging to overcome in larger practices.

  • Mark F Harris1
  • Upali W Jayasinghe1
  • Jane R Taggart1
  • Bettina Christl1
  • Judith G Proudfoot2
  • Patrick A Crookes3
  • Justin J Beilby4
  • Gawaine Powell Davies1

  • 1 Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.
  • 2 Black Dog Institute, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.
  • 3 Faculty of Health Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW.
  • 4 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA.

Correspondence: m.f.harris@unsw.edu.au

Acknowledgements: 

We would like to acknowledge the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) for funding this project through a research grant, and the participating practices and Divisions of General Practice. Judith Proudfoot is grateful to the NHMRC (program grant 510135) for salary support. This article is presented on behalf of the “Teamwork” project research team.

Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q 1996; 74: 511-544.
  • 2. Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract 1998; 1: 2-4.
  • 3. Renders CM, Valk GD, Griffin SJ, et al. Interventions to improve the management of diabetes in primary care, outpatient, and community settings: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 1821-1833.
  • 4. de Sonnaville JJ, Bouma M, Colly LP, et al. Sustained good glycaemic control in NIDDM patients by implementation of structured care in general practice: 2-year follow-up study. Diabetologia 1997; 40: 1334-1340.
  • 5. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. MBS primary care items. Chronic Disease Management (CDM) Medicare items. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mbsprimarycare-chronicdiseasemanagement (accessed Oct 2010).
  • 6. Zwar NA, Hermiz O, Comino EJ, et al. Do multidisciplinary care plans result in better care for type 2 diabetes? Aust Fam Physician 2007; 36: 85-89.
  • 7. Blakeman TM, Harris MF, Comino EJ, Zwar NA. Evaluating general practitioners’ views about the implementation of the Enhanced Primary Care Medicare items. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 95-98.
  • 8. Kirby SE, Chong JL, Frances M, et al. Sharing or shuffling — realities of chronic disease care in general practice [letter]. Med J Aust 2008; 189: 77. <MJA full text>
  • 9. Taggart J, Schwartz A, Harris MF, et al. Facilitating teamwork in general practice: moving from theory to practice. Aust J Prim Health 2009; 15: 24-28.
  • 10. Perkins D, Harris MF, Tan J, et al. Engaging participants in a complex intervention trial in Australian General Practice. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 55.
  • 11. Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, et al. Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Med Care 2005; 43: 436-444.
  • 12. Rosemann T, Laux G, Droesemeyer S, et al. Evaluation of a culturally adapted German version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC 5A) questionnaire in a sample of osteoarthritis patients. J Eval Clin Pract 2007; 13: 806-813.
  • 13. Taggart J, Chan B, Jayasinghe UW, et al. Patients Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in two Australian studies: structure and utility. J Eval Clin Pract 2010 Sep 16. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/j.13652753.2010.01423.x.
  • 14. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia - Data only, 2006. Canberra: ABS, 2008. (ABS Cat. No. 2033.0.55.001.)
  • 15. Proudfoot JG, Bubner T, Amoroso C, et al. Chronic Care Team Profile: a brief tool to measure the structure and function of chronic care teams in general practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15: 692-698.
  • 16. Proudfoot J, Jayasinghe UW, Infante F, et al. Quality of chronic disease care in general practice: the development and validation of a provider interview tool. BMC Fam Pract 2007; 8: 21.
  • 17. Rasbash J, Steele F, Browne W, Prosser B. Multilevel analysis with MLwiN software: a user’s guide to MLwiN version 2.0. Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol, 2005.
  • 18. National Rural Health Alliance. Current issues for Australia’s rural and remote health workforce [position statement]. Canberra: NRHA, 2004.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.