Table 5.
Summary of contextual factors by caseDomain and description
| Case and PHC model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 - Traditional | 2 - GPSC | 3 - GPSC | 4 - GPSC | 5 - HealthOne | 6 - Community Health | |
| History and Initial Conditions | ||||||
| Funding arrangements (All cases had access to FFS via GPs and other eligible services, and to nurse incentive payments) | Rental from co-located services | Rental from co-located services, other grants | Other grants | Rental from co-located services, other grants | Rental from co-located services, other grants | Broad range of grants |
| Business model (FP – for-profit; NFP-not-for-profit; PPP-public/private partnership) | FP (privately owned) | NFP | FP (privately owned) | PPP (university, hospital, LHN) | PPP | NFP |
| Agents | ||||||
| Size (no. of equivalent full-time (EFT) staff) (small ≤ 20; medium ≥ 21 < 35; large ≥ 35) | Small | Medium | Large | Large | Medium | Large |
| GPs (no. of EFT) | 5 GPs, EFT 3.5 | 5 GPs, EFT 2 | 12 GPs, EFT 4 | 23 GPs, EFT 7 | 5GPs EFT 3 | 9GPs, EFT 5.4 |
| Workforce (District of Workforce Shortage) (Changes to GP workforce availability in last 5 years) |
No (recent increase -oversupply) | No (well serviced) | Yes (shortage) | No (recent increase - oversupply) | Yes (shortage) | No (oversupply) |
| Governance (Board of Management representation: e.g. GP/LHN/PHC network and/or university representative/s) | GPs only | University, GPs | CEO is owner and primary decision maker | LHN, University | LHN, PHC network, GPs | Independent board members; external to case LHN, LGA, other managers |
| Stability (Recent changes to structure, governance, workforce) | Instability (workforce leadership) | Stable | Stable | Instability (management and governance structures) | Stable | Instability (management structures) |
| Local fitness landscape | ||||||
| ASGC-RA Remoteness index (Major City; Inner Regional; Outer Regional) | Major City | Major City | Inner Regional | Inner Regional | Inner & Outer Regional | Major City |
| Local government area (LGA) population [41] | 64,000 | 25,000 | 76,000 | 100,000 | 13,000 | 107,000 |
| IRSADa (LGA): Decile | 5 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 9 (practice population has lower socio economic status) |
| Links with LHN/acute health services (distance to acute hospital, co-located specialist clinics/community health services) | < 20kms, none | < 1 km, many LHN clinics | Site A < 28 km, Site B < 12 km, no LHN clinics | < 500 m, some LHN clinics | < 1 km, most community health services | < 5kms, one LHN clinic |
| Regional and global influences | ||||||
| Service culture (referral to other providers within the service, relationship with LHN staff) | Strong informal referral culture | Strong referral networks in and across services | Communications in and across service have improved | Instability has made ‘whole of service’ culture difficult | Strong referral networks in and across services | Allied health and medical siloes impair communication |
a Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage IRSAD: (based on LGA). The lowest 10% of areas are given a decile of 1 and the highest 10% a decile of 10