Scientific rigour and pragmatic implementation are both required, combining research findings with other forms of evidence
Primary health networks (PHNs) have been part of the health landscape in Australia since July 2015. Following the Horvath review of Medicare Locals,1 they were established as locally configured organisations that could support primary health care service providers, design and deliver improved primary health care, and work with hospitals to maximise the efficiency, effectiveness and coordination of care. One key role for PHNs is to commission primary health care services that meet local needs and improve outcomes by procuring services from third party providers, applying market‐making and supply‐shaping principles.2 To do this, PHNs undertake population‐level needs analyses to identify service gaps, reduce hospital burden, and promote value for money. They also help general practices and other primary health care providers deliver community care, optimise quality and safety, and make meaningful use of electronic support systems.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Horvath J. Review of Medicare Locals: report to the Minister for Health and Minster for Sport. 4 Mar 2014. https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/Publishing.nsf/Content/A69978FAABB1225ECA257CD3001810B7/$File/Review-of-Medicare-Locals-may2014.pdf (viewed May 2020).
- 2. Australian Department of Health. Market making and development guidance and toolkit. Updated 21 Sept 2018. https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Market+Making+and+Development+Guidance+and+Toolkit (viewed May 2020).
- 3. Patel B, Peiris DP, Patel A, et al. A computer‐guided quality improvement tool for primary health care: cost‐effectiveness analysis based on TORPEDO trial data. Med J Aust 2020; 213: 73–78.
- 4. Peiris D, Usherwood T, Panaretto K, et al. Effect of a computer‐guided, quality improvement program for cardiovascular disease risk management in primary health care. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2015; 8: 87–95.
- 5. The Kings Fund, University of Melbourne, PricewaterhouseCoopers. Challenges and lessons for good practice. Review of the history and development of health service commissioning. Mar 2016. https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/0DA0E153E02C0501CA2582E900023FD0/$File/Literature%20and%20evidence%20review%20v0.1.pdf (viewed May 2020).
- 6. Patel B, Usherwood T, Harris M, et al. What drives adoption of a computerised, multifaceted quality improvement intervention for cardiovascular disease management in primary healthcare settings? A mixed methods analysis using normalisation process theory. Implement Sci 2018; 13: 140.
- 7. Abimbola S, Patel B, Peiris D, et al. The NASSS framework for ex post theorisation of technology‐supported change in healthcare: worked example of the TORPEDO programme. BMC Med 2019; 17: 233.
- 8. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med 2014; 12: 573–576.
- 9. Freebairn L, Atkinson J, Kelly P, et al. Simulation modelling as a tool for knowledge mobilisation in health policy settings: a case study protocol. Health Res Policy Syst 2016; 14: 71.
- 10. Jimenez Soto E. Other handy tools from health economics. Beacon Strategies [website], 30 Sept 2019. https://www.beaconstrategies.net/beacon-strategies-blog/2019/9/4/other-handy-tools-from-health-economicsnbsp (viewed May 2020).
- 11. Lo K, Karnon J. inDEPtH framework: evidence informed, co‐creation framework for the Design, Evaluation and Procurement of Health services. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e026482.
We thank Dianne Kitcher (chief executive officer, COORDINARE) for her insights and comments on the draft manuscript.
Amanda Barnard is a board director and chair of the Southern NSW Clinical Council of COORDINARE (South Eastern NSW primary health network).