Advances in Trauma?

Well I’ve just got back from an EMST Refresher course in Adelaide.  This is the first time I’ve taught on a refresher course and it was nice to meet other experienced faculty as well as (mostly) rural doctors doing this refresher course. The Provider courses that I usually teach on are not usually so filled with rural doctors - more junior RMOs doing EMSt as a requirement for surgical training ANZCA no longer has EMST as a requirement for their trainees).


EMST is very much an entry-level course, but is well suited to the needs of rural doctors who often have to manage trauma as a solo doctor with limited resources. It should be borne in mind that over 40% of major trauma originates in rural Australia, so there is real bang for buck in getting effective trauma care delivered to these patients, whether y rural GPs or aeromedical services.

On this Refresher course, the hands on scenario-based skills stations seemed well received. I also had an hour after the MCQ to talk about ‘Trauma Teams and Advances in Trauma’ - a golden opportunity to chat about things like human factors in trauma team dynamics, as well as to draw on experiences from the group about well-run and not-so-well run traumas.

But what about ‘advances in trauma’ that are not covered in the EMST Provider course? Well, I reckon they can be broken down by category and it was this approach I used to guide discussion in the 30 minutes or so available to me for each group:

AIRWAY

Videolaryngoscopy as an adjunct for difficult intubation

Ketamine for trauma intubation

Difficult Airway Society algorithms

Andy Heard’s excellent youtube videos on CICV

Cliff Reid’s notorious ‘propofol assassins’ rant

Weingart/Levitan’s paper on preoxygenation

BREATHING

Finger thoracostomy

Ultrasound for evaluation of pneumothorax

CIRCULATION

Minimal volume resuscitation

C-ABC and tourniquets for catastrophic compressible haemorrhage

Tranexamic acid, CRASH II trial & applicability to rural Australia

Managing major traumatic bleeding in rural hospitals (big shout out to Casey Parker’s excellent blog on this at Broome Docs)

We didn’t get as far as DISABILITY but I daresay that discussion of hypertonic saline in head injury would have come up...

The discussion really made me think just how knowledge-hungry the rural doctors I met were, but how hard it was for information to be disseminated to these guys.   It cemented my belief that a  rural masterclass course would have a willing audience. There’s lots of new stuff to discuss in trauma alone, but add in other (non-trauma) areas of interest to the rural proceduralist and you’d have a gutsy, useful, evolving course with enough content for 2-3 days. I could rant about this for ages...

All I could do was relate my own experience in past year or so, and the value of internet-based learning and discussion which has re-vitalised my own enthusiasm for learning. Big shout outs to the rural docs for the education resources below :

Minh le Cong’s retrieval resources for ACRRM members at www.rrmeo.com and his new PreHospital And Rural Medicine (PHARM) blog at www.prehospitalmed.com

Cliff Reid’s excellent blog at www.resus.me

Casey Parker’s excellent Broome Docs, the central repository for all things relevant to the rural proceduralist

Those UCEM rascals over at Life In The Fast Lane

Scott Weingart's EM-crit blog

Common themes amongst the rural proceduralists I spoke to remained

• difficulty accessing medical equipment (videolaryngoscopy, infusion pumps and fluid warmers were common ‘wish lists’)
• difficulty with triage and training for nursing staff in rural hospitals
• desire for cross-training with RFDS/Retrieval service in terms of infusion regiments, SOPs and equipment

In Country Health SA, there are nominated rural doctors as ‘consultants’ in each of the areas of emergency medicine, anaesthetics, obstetrics & surgery. According to CHSA, their role is to :

• be responsible for providing clinical system advice and broad support to rural resident medical practitioners in country South Australia, in their identified area of expertise
  
• act as a point of contact for clinicians in country regarding system issues, as related to their specialty area, and participate in problem resolution
  
• participate in the development of policy and procedures that guide clinical practice in country. In addition, the Chief Consultants will work with the Chief Medical Adviser, Country Health SA and other country health staff related to decision making and policy setting as related to their speciality area 

With the exception of obstetrics, for which there seems to be a proactive rural proceduralist, it is hard to point the finger firmly at any positive attempt to address the above issues by present incumbents. In fact the rural doctors I spoke to (those with EM or anaes skills) were not aware of any initiatives in past year or so by the CHSA EM or Anaes consultants.

Which is a shame, as it seems these rural docs were struggling with similar issues in their own institutions, but lacking a top-down approach to streamline equipment, protocols & training. Rather they were having to push for equipment/training by dealing with local DONs of the hospital, usually being rebuffed as 'no money' in CHSA. It seems that my problems on Kangaroo Island with equipment/training are the same as those in Port Lincoln, the Riverland, the South East etc...and we are all trying to fix in our own manner, which mostly comes down to enthusiasm for a particular issue at any one time. No wonder things are fragmented.

Meanwhile not a week goes by without another meaningless diktat arriving in rural doctors email from CHSA detailing the latest policy. Useful stuff...for example I've learned that dabigatran can cause bleeding (well, duh!)...and that I probably should not inject chlorhexidine down an epidural catheter. I only wish the same regard for safety was applied to trauma management and crisis management in theatre or the ED of rural hospitals...

Phil Tideman of iCCNet has revolutionised how cardiac patients are cared for in rural South Australia, with an initiative over past decade to place point-of-care troponin, proBNP and iStat machines into all rural EDs, as well as standardised protocols for management of ACS/STEMI & heart failure patients relevant to rural practitioners. Whilst I am not a huge fan of centralisation of services, such standardisation in equipment and protocols has had demonstrable benefits for these patients...similar with obstetrics under Steve Holmes' wise guidance. Why not extend the same to trauma, emergency and theatre patients by assessing needs of rural doctors and addressing their common issues?


A simple issue, like availability of difficult airway equipment or new advances like tranexamic acid could and should be addressed by these consultants.


Perhaps it’s time for some new blood in CHSA to represent the rural proceduralists in SA?

Obfuscation & the 'Blame Game'

Well, I was not expecting that the letter in my last post would be referred to in 'The Weekend Australian' in follow-up to a previous report. Thanks to Dr Scott Lewis of Wudinna for telling me.

Oh dear.

There seems to be confusion about the issue of ED patients being charged fees in rural SA hospitals. It's something that has been an issue locally every since I have been on Kangaroo Island, and my colleagues tell me has been going longer still. I refer to the fact that patients presenting with serious problems (examples might include assessment after a car crash, a suspected fracture/dislocation, a forensic medical exam after sexual assault, repair of a complex laceration) are forced to pay the attending doctor, whilst they would receive the same service for free in a metro ED or interstate.

This is counter to the Australian Healthcare Agreement and the letter which is referred to in the Weekend Australian support this. The practice has been longstanding in South Australia, and I reckon arises over confusion over what is an emergency and what is a GP-type service.

The Australian college of Emergency Medicine have recently issued a media release that dispels the myth of triage 4/5 patients being 'GP-type' attendances, and highlights concern for such cost-shifting between State and Federal coffers.

Me? I am just fed up having to charge people for conditions that are more serious than your usual GP attendance, more so when they have been referred to the ED by another GP or a GP after hours service like HealthDirect. Don;t get me wrong, I am happy to charge privately for my services when it is appropriate - but charging a mental health patient, a rape victim or a car crash victim several hundred dollars just seems wrong. Much better to be paid by the Health Department, after all the doctor is attending in his/her role on the on call A&E roster, not as a private arrangement.

Today I received an email from the Rural Doctors Association of South Australia, which appears to cling to paragraph G21 of the Australian Healthcare Agreement, which allows for medicare billing in the specific circumstance of "eligible patients may obtain non-admitted patient services as private patients where they request treatment by their own GP, either as part of continuing care or by prior arrangement with the doctor" (my emphasis underlined).

The RDASA email states:

There has been a lot of email traffic and concern from you about the article appearing in the Australian over the weekend inferring that charging patients for after-hours services in publicly funded hospitals was contravening the National Health Care reform document. 

Please be assured that the RDASA Executive have taken immediate action on this issue, writing to Minister John Hill referring him to section G.19 of that Agreement and the assurances from CHSA that the current arrangements are acceptable to the Federal government. We have sought written confirmation that:

·         Doctors can bill Medicare for triage level 4 and 5 after-hours consultations that occur at public country hospital facilities

·         Doctors will not have to pay back any money to Medicare for money already collected

Maybe I am being thick, but it seems unfair to use clause G21 to then slug rural patients for services that would receive for free in a metropolitan ED or interstate.

RDASA seem curiously quiet on this issue of equity and I fear that this approach may be regarded as more about preserving doctor's incomes than in equity for their patients. Given that many of these patients are genuinely in crisis or not-medicare compensable (particularly in a tourist location like Kangaroo Island), I would much prefer to be paid by the Hospital for my services rather than bulk bill or chase bad debts. After all, the Hospital called me as the A&E doctor for the hospital, not the patient as part of a prior arrangement or agreed private service.

Anyway, here's my letter to the RDAA on this issue. It will be interesting to see what eventuates.

Comments, as always, welcome.

Paul Mara

President

Rural Doctors Association of Australia

10 May 2012

Dear RDAA

You may be aware of the recent ‘Weekend Australian’ article regarding billing of public patients attending public emergency departments in South Australia (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/warning-for-states-on-hospital-charges/story-e6frgczx-1226347278031). Last month I received a letter from Minister Plibersek’s office (attached) which supported my concerns regarding the practice of charging public patients in public EDs for non-admitted services. This letter was posted on my blog site and subsequently referred to by The Weekend Australian without my knowledge. 

I have been seeking clarification on this matter since 2007 from the South Australian Health Department, as there exists significant potential for cost-shifting from State to Federal Health budgets. Specifically, patients who attend the Emergency Department are annoyed at having to pay fees for non-admitted attendances in rural areas.

I should clarify that these fees are being charged not just for GP-type attendances, but for ED attendances that require the resources of a hospital and can chew up considerable time for assessment and treatment. Many of these patients have been referred to a rural ED by GP-after hours services such as HealthDirect, and are not typical of GP attendances in metropolitan areas. Examples might include the assessment of car crash victims after a rollover, forensic medical examination after sexual assault; urgent mental health assessment of patient brought in by Police; the assessment, X-ray, manipulation under anaesthetic and plastering of fracture/dislocation; repair of complex laceration etc. These are services that Country Health SA has in the past deemed ineligible for admission and hence cost-shifted to Medicare by refusing to remunerate doctors on the A&E roster.

On questioning this in the past, South Australian doctors have been directed to clause G21 of the Healthcare Agreement which states:

"in those hospitals that rely on GPs for the provision of medical services...eligible patients may obtain non-admitted patient services as private patients where they request treatment by their own GP, either as part of continuing care or by prior arrangement with the doctor"

The most recent (indeed, only) contract between rural doctors in SA with Country Health SA goes further, to state :

“after hours GP services and non-admitted emergency services are provided under the Medicare system (ie the patient is charged by the medical practitioner and seeks reimbursement from medicare). For the avoidance of doubt, Country Health SA shall not be liable to pay any fee for such services”

This statement in our contract neatly ties both emergency attendances and after hours GP services under the same umbrella, ie: to be charged to Medicare. This is at odds with legislation.

I understand the RDASA has recently written to the RDAA on this matter. From the email to SA members, the issue has been obfuscated by confusing triage 4/5 patients with GP-type attendances, an assertion that is not reflected in either the National Healthcare Agreements or current contracts in SA. Indeed, the Australian College of Emergency Medicine gave recently issued a media release on this very issue, dispelling the myth that “ED triage 4 or 5 patients = GP attendance” and highlighting the concern for State to Federal cost-shifting by such ploys (see http://www.acem.org.au/media/media_releases/GP_Patients_ED_attendances.pdf).

I am concerned that this issue disadvantages rural Australians In SA who may defer ED attendance for potentially serious conditions due to fear of fees. I am concerned that the SA Health Department is promulgating an interpretation of the Australian Healthcare Agreement which is at variance with other States and which both Medicare and the Federal Health Minister’s office have told me is not allowable. I am concerned that genuine GP after hours or private arrangements (where I am more than happy to charge a private fee) are being used as a cover to defray State health costs.  For the record, can I ask for your assistance to clarify with the Health Minister and RDASA:

1. that the Australian Healthcare Agreement states that eligible public patients are entitled to free emergency care in a public ED,

1. that the South Australian Department of Health is responsible for provision of emergency medical services in both metropolitan and country areas,

1. that the contract between rural doctors and Country Health SA is to participate in on-call services for Emergency Medicine (A&E), not GP-after hours services,

1. that whilst clause G21 does allow for rural doctors to charge privately (with Medicare rebate) this is only in the situation where patients “request treatment by their own GP, either as part of continuing care or by prior arrangement with the doctor”. Many patients who present to the ED have either been referred there by a GP or an after hours service (HealthDirect) or else have needs that require ED attendance. They have not requested treatment by their own GP nor is their a pre-existing prior arrangement with the doctor on call for the A&E roster for the State Health Department.

1. that in situations where a patient elects to be treated privately by their own GP then clause G21 applies and Medicare fees are allowed,

1. that the assertion that triage 4/5 patients are to be billed under Medicare is not supported in the Australian Healthcare Agreement and indeed is counter to advice from the Australian College of Emergency Medicine who dispel this myth in a recent media release and state “It is in the political interest of state governments to ensure that any definition of general practice patients seen in EDs yields high numbers. This helps perpetuate the myth that EDs have too many GP patients.”

1. that the situation as it stands in South Australia is at odds with arrangements interstate.

I would be grateful for your clarification on the above points. To my mind it is vital that rural Australians are not disadvantaged when attending the ED with a genuine need. Similarly there may be concerns from rural doctors that such Medicare-billing is not supported and there needs to be clarification that such practices are allowable in certain circumstances (eg: as part of a GP after hours service utilising the local hospital premises, ie: private arrangement, ongoing care). I am happy to charge privately for my services when it is appropriate - but charging a mental health patient, a rape victim or a car crash victim several hundred dollars just seems wrong. Much better to be paid by the Health Department, after all the doctor is attending in his/her role on the on call A&E roster, not as a private arrangement.

I am sure you would agree that it is important for rural doctors to be seen to uphold the same standards in each State and to ensure that neither patients nor doctors are disadvantaged.

Sincerely

Dr Tim Leeuwenburg

Kangaroo Island, South Australia www.ki-docs.blogspot.com

Country Emergency Department Fees

Well I've just received a letter from the Federal Health Minister which seems to broadly confirm my suspicions that the charging of fees for country patients attending a public hospital ED is incorrect.

You may need to click and open separately to view

Of course there is a grey area in what is a 'GP after hours' type attendance and what is an emergency attendance - and with that comes the potential for massive cost-shifting from the State (charged with providing free public emergency treatment) and the Commonwealth (providing Medicare compensable services).


Country patients are caught up in this, as in South Australia they have been charged fees for attending the ED in rural hospitals. Now historically there was an arrangement (not defined in a contract, but in an agreed schedule of fees for paying doctors called SARMFA) that allowed a rural doctor to charge a private fee in circumstances where a patient requested private treatment by a particular doctor, or where care was provided in the country hospital as part of ongoing care or prior arrangement.


This seems a sensible compromise to allow rural doctors to attend patients at the hospital both in and after hours for GP-type consultations or private care. Example might be an agreement between doctor and patient to meet at the hospital after routine consulting for a review of an eye injury, utilising the hospital's slit-lamp. or arranging to be seen for a skin excision or to administer intravenous therapy.


All well and good.


Then in 2010 a new contract (in fact the first time a written arrangement about rights & responsibilities) between CHSA and rural doctors came into being. This is a good thing and it was hoped that would create a level-playing field with rural doctors getting equivalent deals, rather than the hotch-potch of 'local deals' that saw some doctors getting lucrative locum rates for being oncall, others struggling to balance the impact of providing oncall work for the hospital with their private practice.


The negotiating teams of both AMA and RDASA invested a lot of time and effort into getting the 'best deal', but as time wore on the AMA walked away from the offer whilst the RDASA recommended to their members on a temporary basis, expecting a new and better deal to be negotiated by the end of November 2011.


My concern has been that, for the first time, there is a contract that is explicit about the charging of fees. Whilst the SA Health Minister acknowledges that CHSA are responsible for the provision of public emergency services in the country, there is a catch. The contract specifies that only ADMITTED patients are entitled to free treatment - non-admitted patients are to be charged by the attending doctor.


This seems to fudge the previous arrangement designed for private services or ongoing care between patient and treating doctor. Instead, people who present to a rural ED in South Australia are charged fees unless they are admitted....and yet patients with similar problems who go to a metro ED are provided the service for free.


The Health Minister says this is because rural hospitals do not have a salaried medical officer on site. Fair enough. I'd just argue that if the Hospital feels they need to call in a doctor, that that doctor is paid for their services - and the patient does not.


Of course, if the patient presentation is trivial (a GP-type attendance) then it would be appropriate to divert them to a GP-after hours service or to GP clinic the next day - and Medicare or private fees would apply.


It's all down to definition. What is an admitted patient? The bean-counters take the view that a patient has to be present for > 4 hours, although occasionally this requirement can be relaxed for certain things (type C attendances, a definition derived from mostly day surgery units).


So we have a position now enshrined in a contract, where rural patients may be charged for things like reduction of a fracture, IV fluids, X-rays, assessment after a car crash, mental health emergency in a country ED...on the basis that these are 'GP services'. These are things that a GP in the city may well refer patients to an ED for.


Medicare advisors tell me this is illegal and that doctors should not charge for such non-admitted ED services where patients attend a public ED. The Dept of Health & Ageing letter suggests the same.


The only explanation from CHSA is that this is allowed because of a 'longstanding arrangement for treatment of private patients as part of ongoing care or prior arrangement by a specific doctor'. 


I am all for this - when such care is agreed and is genuinely private. I have no qualms charging a private fee for my private GP services. 


Seems hard to explain that all this to the carload of NSW tourists who have crashed and seek assistance at the local hospital only to be saddled with a bill. Or the patient with a fracture-dislocation that requires X-ray/reduction/plastering...and many more examples.  Understandably some patients refuse to pay on the basis that they are attending an ED. CHSA insists that the doctor charges Medicare..who say that this practice is illegal...and CHSA doesn't answer this query.


So, where are we at now?


There have been two extensions to the rural doctors contract (which was to expire 30/11/11) so far...the current extension ends in just under four weeks and still no contract offer available for perusal.


In an effort to address this anomaly, RDASA had proposed that triage 1-2-3 patients are to receive free treatment. Seems fair, although it does ignore the issue that triage is just about treatment priority, not complexity and is ill-suited to decisions about whether ED attendance is appropriate or not. There is a myth that triage 4/5 patients are 'GP-type' presentations, when in fact these patients are often elderly, complex and require admission or the services of an ED not a GP (minor fractures, plastering, X-ray etc). ACEM have issued a media release on this which is informative.


Despite that, I'm still struggling to get paid for attending a triage 1 call in...with CHSA insisting the patient be billed under Medicare.


So, there you have it. 


- A contract that seems to be in breach of the National Healthcare Agreement.
- Cost-shifting fees onto patients who are already rurally disadvantaged. 
- And only a few weeks to go until the most recent contract negotiation expires.


Really, is this any way to do business? It seems that Country Health SA hold both rural patients and the medical workforce with a lack of respect. I despair, because this sort of thing does little to encourage recruitment and retention of rural doctors to South Australia.


I guess there's no votes in the bush.

Emergencies & GP after hours

Well there's an interesting article this week from Emergency Medicine Australia (Nagree et al 2012 'Telephone triage is not the answer to ED overcrowding' EMA 24 123-126) as well as a media release from the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine regarding triage.

Before rural medicine I was an EM trainee. I'm pretty passionate about emergency medicine - sadly one of the reasons I got out of the specialty was frustration with things I could not control, not least the phenomenon of 'access block' - too many people in the ED, waiting for beds on the ward. I must admit that as a junior doctor I would bemoan 'GP-type' patients clogging up the ED...but as time went on and I matured clinically, I realised that:

(a) these low acuity problems were quick and easy to fix
(b) they were not a burden on time or resources
and
(c) often even the low acuity patients had complex health needs that required admission to a hospital for sorting out.

As a rural doctor I do my utmost to avoid turfing patients unnecessarily to my overworked colleagues in the ED, trying to smooth my patients' admission to the appropriate unit without them having to be stuck on a trolley in the ED awaiting review.

Whilst it is tempting to imaging the ED clogged up with non-urgent problems, the reality is that such presentations are easily dealt with (even the most junior of resident medical officers can treat a UTI or reassure parents of a child with otitis media). What clogs up the ED are complex patients requiring investigation and admission, as well as the labour and resource-intensive presentations such as critical illness.

It's also relevant to the ongoing issue of what is and what isn't an emergency - with a blatant cost-shift between State and Federal funds trying to classify many ED attendees as 'inappropriate GP-type attendances'.

But there is a problem.

Politicians need to be seen to 'do something'. They have latched onto the concept of the idea of triage 4 and 5 patients as being GP-type attendees and in a non-evidence based approach have poured hundreds of millions into schemes such as GP after hours, co-located clinics and the disastrous healthdirect phone line.

Phone triage sounds good. But it doesn't work - experience from overseas (not least the ill-fated NHS-direct in the UK proves this). Put simply, a nurse or a GP following a protocol will not be able to diagnose over the phone 100% reliably. It may be a sop to the worried well, but my grandmother can do this job just as well and won't cost the estimated $200 million that healthdirect costs the taxpayer.

The Health Minister has stated that healthdirect has deterred 30,000 patients from a million calls from visiting the ED. Sounds good...but that's only 3% of calls...surely better to spend that money on beds and more clinical staff...not a phone service.

We don't do phone triage in the ED, instead advising patients to present to the ED for a face-to-face assessment - because it is a safe approach - history and examination cannot be done reliably over a phone. In fact, the more medicine I do the more I realise how medicine doesn't fall into neat protocols or boxes. The skill of a good Emergency Physician or GP is to spot the severely abnormal amongst the morass of mostly normal. A protocol (or my grandmother) will get things right most of the time - but will miss the more unusual or atypical presentations. The UK's NHS-direct has learnt this, with several lawsuits after missed diagnosis - the headache that was a subarachnoid, the febrile child with meningitis etc.

So Prof Nagree's paper neatly debunks the idea that phone triage alleviates pressure on Emergency Departments. What then of triage as a measure of ED vs GP-type attendances?

Triage is a score of urgency of treatment - not complexity. Many triage 4 or 5 patients have been sent to the ED by GPs. To then proclaim that they are 'GP-type' attendances misses the point that such patients are complex, require extensive investigation (usually using facilities not present in a GP surgery, such as X-ray, bloods etc) and often require admission.

This may not sound like a big deal - but it is an issue in the country where patients who are not admitted are charged a fee for attending the ED, on the spurious basis that they represent routine General Practice.

Which then raises the issue of GP After Hours services - what is the appropriate level of service needed after hours and will pumping money into GPAH alleviate pressure on EDs?

The Government clearly thinks so and is throwing around money like a drunken sailor. We met with the Medicare Locals mob last month on Kangaroo Island (formerly they were the Southern Division of General Practice in Adelaide, then GP-Network South, and now the unwieldy Southern Adelaide-Fleurieu-Kangaroo Island Medicare Local). They were canvassing opinion on GPAH services but seemed to have no grasp of the issues locally nor how to address them.

I always think of GPs like plumbers - you need us during working hours for scheduled things like routine maintenance...but we might have to deal with the occasional urgent job like a dripping tap. However you don't really need these things fixing at 3am. On the other hand, if the hot water service blows up or a water main bursts, this needs to be dealt with. These are the medical equivalent of an emergency medicine service and as rural GPs we provide this too. However is this routine GP or is this an emergency?

I'm a simple chap - I think that primary care generally deals with most things...but if it cannot wait 12 hours or needs the services of a hospital then the problem is ipso facto an emergency.

Nagree's paper establishes that phone triage does not alleviate pressure on EDs - the issue is access block, not inappropriate attendees. The corollary is that most patients are in ED because they belong there - throwing money at afterhours services by GPs doesn't really address their complex health needs requiring hospital services (imaging, same day bloods etc)

However the issue of non-admitted emergency patients remains unaddressed. I can cite numerous examples (not least from the current busy Easter weekend oncall as I type) of people presenting appropriately to the ED - but being forced to pay for their attendance because they are not admitted (State Govt cost shifts to Medicare)

Examples include

- fall from a roof, 25 cm incisional wound requiring formal debridement under local anaesthesia and repair taking 90 minutes

- fall from a horse with possible cervical spine injury

- four tourists in a medium speed (60kph) rollover on unsealed road, presenting to hospital for forensic blood alchohol, assessment of injuries

- 13 year old fall from skateboard with angulated Colles fracture requiring manipulation and casting

- mental health patient brought in by Police for assessment

- 45 yo with ?fracture-dislocation shoulder requiring analgesia, X-ray and reduction

All of these patients chew up a few hours of time. I think they were appropriately seen within the ED and not deferred for a routine 15 min GP appointment in the week.

However the false reliance on triage as a marker of GP vs ED attendance will continue to encourage misguided strategies to reduce ED overcrowding that are doomed to fail. It also allows cost-shifting from State (emergency) to Medicare (GP) budgets.

As ACEM say "it is in the political interest of State governments to ensure that any definition of general practice patients seen in EDs yields high numbers. This helps perpetuate the myth that EDs have too many GP patients'

Quite.

What do others think?

Had a gutful

Well, it's kind of ironic that over the weekend there's been a small flurry of interest in the issue of non-admitted hospital patients being charged a fee in South Australian country hospitals (see The Australian p7 24/3/12)...and yet at the same time this issue arose locally.


I understand that the Minister of Health is not a happy bunny currently - being the Health Minister must be an unforgiveable job, especially when the budget is squeezed tight. 


And I've recently been criticised for raising this issue - on the basis that it's been going on for a while and may impact on doctor's hip pockets (some rural docs are doing OK charging a $50 gap for non-admitted patients and may be reluctant to see a change in the status quo). 


It's also a fairly intense time at the moment - the contract between Country Health SA and rural doctors remains 'in negotiation' - even though a finalised deal was supposed to have been in place by 30/11/11...and we are on our second 3 month extension. There may be anxiety that politicising this issue will affect negotiations.


I agree and think this issue transcends whichever party is currently in power.


Anyhow I was on for anaesthetics this weekend and was called in by the hospital for a 'cardiac arrest'. I arrived ahead of the A&E oncall doctor and the patient, who was transported by ambulance.  


Suffice it to say that when they arrived at the hospital, the patient was very much alive and indeed combative from another cause. 


After a quick ABC assessment I was stood down and left the patient in the capable hands of my A&E colleague. I understand that the patient left the ED some time later, discharged to the care of a capable adult.


Today I emailed the head of Country Health fee-for-service, asking how this attendance should be billed.


The response? Well, as the patient was not admitted, it is apparently 'a private matter between the patient and the doctor and CHSA is not liable'


I've had a gutful of this. I really don't mind being called in, whatever the hour, whatever the reason. If the hospital feels they need my services, and I am oncall, then I am available and will come in.


But to then turn around and say they won't pay?


Now, this will no doubt be sorted out after the usual barrage of emails to-and-fro until someone (usually the CHSA medical advisor) makes a determination. I will expend many hours chasing the debt, my BP will climb...but ultimately I will get paid.


But it is all so tedious and mind-mumbingly unnecessary. I am fed up with having to chase payment from a health service that seems to apply rules inflexibly and illogically.


I sure as hell am not going to charge the patient - they arrived by ambulance with four paramedics in attendance, two doctors, extra nursing staff etc and were transported to the appropriate place - a nice shiny hospital.


My expectation is that if the hospital feels a matter is urgent, and calls a doctor, then they should pay that doctor regardless of outcome, of subsequent diagnosis or of triage score. I think most common sense people would agree. However the wording of current arrangements opens the door to cost-shifting from State funds (public hospital) to the patient (Medicare reimbursement if compensable).


I don't care, I just want to get paid without fighting every bloody time!


Is this really so unreasonable or hard to understand?

Open Letter to the Minister

Well, it's finally happened. I've succumbed to the urge to fire off Victor Meldrew-like letters of indignant fury to the Health Minister over the recent exchange of press releases between Liberal and Labor Health Ministers regarding the issue of country patients being charged fees for A&E services.


Grumpy old doctor aside, I really believe this is an issue that is important. Rural Australians are disadvantaged enough, without having to face fees for A&E services.


I should note that this is not an issue of self interest - as a rural doctor, I derive part of my income from charging fees to attend a patient at 3am. And I am comfortable with charging a fee where it is fair. But when the same patient would get the same service for free in a metro ED, I have to question the process. And when patients are afraid to attend the A&E because they fear a fee, something is very very wrong.


It is true that a private fee can be charged as part of a continuing care episode or by prior arrangement for a patient to see a particular doctor privately. Fair enough.


But the people who attend EDs usually have urgent issues that cannot be dealt with in GP private rooms. They often require services that cannot be delivered in rooms (X-rays, anaesthetic, plaster etc). They haven't asked for a particular private doctor to see them - they have correctly self-presented to the emergency department and the hospital has in turn decided to call in the doctor.


Rural health outcomes are already bad - to charge people just makes this worse.


So - I'd be a lot happier if I was paid by the hospital for attending patients who the hospital feels need to see a doctor urgently, through my contract to provide A&E services. I may be poorer if paid by the hospital, but it would be a fairer system


I am pretty sure patients would prefer it!


Anyway, here's my latest missive.




11-03-12


Dear Minister

I read your latest Press Release re: country hospitals charging fees in response to the Press Release of Martin Hamilton-Smith. Regardless of whichever party is in power, I remain perplexed.

The fact remains, country people are charged fees for non-admitted A&E attendances in rural hospitals,  for services that are provided for free in metropolitan areas.

These are not, as you suggest, charges for routine GP services - your 2010 contract with rural doctors is very clear - non-admitted patients in the ED are considered to be private patients of the GP

Examples of non-admitted A&E attendances include

- forensic medical examination of a rape victim

- assessment including X-ray, reduction & plastering of a fractured limb

- repair of a complex laceration

- assessment of victims of a vehicle rollover

- urgent assessment of a complex mental health crisis

- administration of a neuroleptic agent for reduction of a dislocated shoulder

These are not routine GP services. These services are appropriately provided through an Emergency Department and are provided for free everyday in metro EDs.

When the Hospital calls the oncall doctor, it is through his/her contract with CHSA to provide A&E services, not as a private arrangement betwixt GP and patient. 

Many patients are rightly fed up with being charged fees for services in an emergency. Sadly some patients do not seek medical attention with urgent problems that SHOULD be seen in an ED, for fear of cost. I have recently been told of a patient who delayed seeking medical attention for fear of fees...then presented in extremis several days later and died.

Your press release intimates that the only alternatives are for either GPs not to charge patients their gap fees, or for CHSA to put in salaried medical officers and 'put rural doctors out of business'

You neglect to mention the third option - simply to pay the oncall doctor for the work he or she does, regardless of admission status. Existing fee-for-service arrangements would be more than adequate and would be in line with conditions interstate.

Surely it's not that hard to grasp? If a patient presents to a CHSA hospital with a problem that is deemed urgent, the hospital needs to call a doctor as part of the A&E roster, and the service cannot be provided in routine GP rooms....then the patient should receive the service for free and the doctor be paid by CHSA.

The matter has been needless obfuscated by lack of confusion over what is and what isn't an admitted service..and a continuing reference to provision for private patients to be treated by their own doctor when they request as part of a prior arrangement or as part of continuing care. None of these apply for the patients I am called to see when on your A&E roster.

I rang Medicare last week. They reckoned it was illegal for me to be charging patients for services provided in the A&E department and referred me to the National Healthcare Agreement which states that:

States and Territories will provide health and emergency services through the public hospital system, based on the following Medicare principles:

(a) eligible persons are to be given the choice to receive, free of charge as public patients, health and emergency services of a kind or kinds that are currently, or were historically provided by hospitals;

(b) access to such services by public patients free of charge is to be on the basis of clinical

need and within a clinically appropriate period; and

(c) arrangements are to be in place to ensure equitable access to such services for all eligible

persons, regardless of their geographic location.

As far as I am aware there is no section 19 exemption between SA and the Commonwealth.

How then can CHSA continue insist that doctors on the A&E roster charge patients for A&E services in CHSA EDs for conditions that are certainly serious but may not require admission for the requisite four hours to satisfy admission criteria?

I look forward to your response. These questions have been asked by me previously to CHSA CEO's George Beltchev and Clare Douglas without response.

I hope you can finally answer this, not with political spin, but in the interests of rural patients who deserve a better deal.

Kind regards

tim leeuwenburg (dr)
kangaroo island
south australia

Loving the Job

I reckon the work as a rural doctor is the best that medicine offers. Just heard from a colleague with whom I did anaesthetics last year in NSW.

"Mate I love this job! In the past 7 days I've thrombolysed a 44 year old with a STEMI, resuscitated a 5 year old who had a fit in the local pool, drained a 2L pleural effusion off an ol' fellas chest, gassed 5 people on a gen surg list, managed a snake bite, released two carpal tunnels, resuscitated a floppy neonate after a ventouse and seen a whole load of people in general practise. I LOVE MY JOB! Hope you're having fun mate. This job just keeps getting better!"

No, he hasn't been at the drugs cupboard. He is expressing the simple joy of being a rural doctor with the skills to do your work. As I've stated before, I reckon that being a rural doc is one of the best jobs around - especially for those with procedural skills.

Sadly skills aren't all you need - you need the equipment to do your work well and you need structures behind you to ensure that your work is sustainable in what is, ultimately, a high-pressure job. For most of us, that means adequate locum relief or being paid for the work you do.

With regard to equipment, I've just submitted my paper on the availability of difficult airway equipment for rural doctors. Of the estimated 448 rural GP-anaesthetists out there, I've got responses from 293 - a 65% response rate, which is apparently quite good for an internet-based survey. So paper has gone in for submission...

I won't give the game away (wait for the paper, if it survives the review process) - suffice it to say that there are common themes amongst the rural GP-anaesthetist cohort - lack of funding for basic and advanced airway equipment predominating amongst respondents. 

I've tried to outline in my paper some suggestions for affordable equipment to help advance the cause - for under $4K a small hospital can purchase some of the intubating LMA AirQ-II blockers, plus a fibreoptic device to allow intubation through the iLMA (something like the flexible AmbuAscope 2 or the Levitan malleable intubating stylet). There'll still be change leftover to buy a KingVision videolaryngoscope - all of this gives a fairly robust kit for the 'occasional intubator' or GP-anaesthetist.

A&E Services & Contract Negotiations

Meanwhile, the State opposition Minister for Health has finally twigged to the inequity of country patients being charged for non-admitted A&E services that their metropolitan counterparts receive for free through Emergency Departments. Minister Hill is now on record saying that the 'only solution' would involve putting in salaried medical officers which would 'send GPs in rural towns broke' (The Advertiser, p15 9/3/12). He neglects to consider the alternative option - pay the oncall rural GP for A&E under existing fee-for-service arrangements, regardless of whether patient is admitted or not.

This solution would ensure patients attending the A&E with problems deemed inappropriate for routine GP would not face fees. It would mean the doctor is paid by the Health Dept without having to chase fees. Everyone is happy...

And it would be fairer to rural patients who already face significant health inequalities due to rurality.

This issue is all the more relevant as the existing contract between rural doctors and CHSA expired on 30/11/11 and has been postponed not once, but twice. I dunno about other rural docs, but I'm a little fed up of CHSA failing to come to the negotiating table and sending missives advising of a 90 day 'contract extension' on the last day of the existing contract.

It's not a good way to do business and seems symptomatic of a relationship whereby CHSA treats rural docs and patients as a hinderance to their bureaucracy, rather than a vital component of the health service.

Back in the saddle

Well, have been a bit hectic the past few weeks since getting back to Kangaroo Island after my year away doing anaesthetics in NSW. Thankfully it's relatively easy to slip back into the groove of rural medicine - and in fact it's been a welcome relief after being back in the tertiary hospital system. But still had to get used to running on time, all the paperwork that seems to swamp us as well as catch up with friends and family back home.


Hence no blog posts since early January.


However today I am on call, sitting on the deck with a 12 month old kangaroo that Trish has taken on board in my absence, watching the rains over the north coast of KI.


Being on call again is actually quite refreshing - the Kangaroo Island doctors as a whole are now doing three weeks out of every four on the EM roster...the remaining (4th) week covered by a Country Health SA locum. I believe similar arrangements have been in place elsewhere in the State, where local doctors are struggling to fill the EM roster. Meanwhile between four of us we are providing full cover for anaesthetics and obstetrics, with two doctors doing each discipline.


I've also been getting to grips with delivering anaesthetics on KI - two lists so far which have been uneventful, although I'm still trying to work out how to make the anaesthetic machine display a minimal alveolar concentration of anaesthetic agent, and struggling with an end-tidal CO2 monitor that reads in unknown units (3.5-4.5 seems the average, not the 35-40mmHg I'm used to). One for the hospital to work out...


When not at work, I have been analysing the results from the GP-anaesthetist survey - over 370 responses so far, and a fair proportion are dedicated GP-anaesthetists as well as 'occasional intubators' (rural docs who are on an EM roster and may be called upon to intubate seldomly). Results have been interesting, with no surprises that rural docs don't have access to a lot of the airway kit that would be taken fro granted in the city. More worryingly, a session at the local (mostly volunteer) ambulance station last week showed me that they've got some kit on the ambulance that we don't have in our hospital! Had some helpful insights from airway giants like Paul Baker (NZ) and Minh le Cong (RFDS Qld), as well as lots of comments from the wider GP-anaesthetist cohort who seem to share similar frustrations as we do locally. But more on that later, as I polish my manuscript and hope to get published later this year. Meanwhile, will try and give a few talks during the year to interested parties.


But back to on-call....I've realised that it's been almost two years since I've done an EM shift on Kangaroo Island - away for all of 2011 doing anaesthetics and for 2010 the docs on KI were reeling from all the nastiness over contract negotiations with Country Health SA and the ACCC. Now I am on-call for anaesthetics for half the year and doing one emergency shift a week....and wondering where we are at with contract negotiations - the last contract was due to end Nov 2011, rather than the usual three years...as rural docs were generally unhappy with the contract terms but were prepared to accept an interim contract hoping things would improve.


Back on 30/11/11 the head of Country Health, Belinda Moyes, wrote asking for a three month extension to contract negotiations. That extension is due to expire on 28/2/12 and I've not heard peep from Country Health over contracts. One has to wonder if they are serious about negotiating a new contract, or will just keep 'extending' the current contract rather than negotiate.


A big issue for me (and many other doctors) has been the sheer unfairness of Country Health insisting that people presenting to the emergency department are billed privately by the on call doctor, unless they are admitted to a hospital bed. This seems plainly unfair - whilst patients in metro areas are treated for free in the Emergency Dept of public hospitals, their country cousins are charged. 


Many of these services are for things that are not routine 'general practice' ie: X-raying a fracture and setting a limb in plaster, suturing an extensive laceration, pulling a dislocated shoulder back into shape, dealing with an alleged rape or victims of a motor vehicle accident. Country Health has managed to formalise this in the most recent (well, in fact the first) contract from 2010 with a clause stating that:


"non admitted emergency services are provided under the Medicare system (ie the patient is charged by the medical practitioner and seeks reimbursement from Medicare). For the avoidance of doubt, CHSA shall not be liable to pay any fee for such services"


Their rationale is that such patients are an extension of the doctors private practice. Indeed, CHSA states that:

"This funding model with MBS being paid for public patients attending state hospitals, is acceptable to the Commonwealth due to an exemption in the National Healthcare Agreement that ‘in those hospitals that rely on GPs for the provision of medical services (normally small rural hospitals), eligible patients may obtain non-admitted patient services as private patients where they request treatment by their own GP, either as part of continuing care or by prior arrangement with the doctor.’ 

As far as I know, South Australia doesn't have an exemption under the National Healthcare Agreement but continues to obfuscate this issue. What really twists my melon, and that of the patients who I see who are charged for their attendance, is that they have neither requested treatment by their own GP, nor is there treatment part of continuing care or a prior arrangement with the doctor. Basically, it's not a private service...it's just Coutnry Health SA cost-shifting dollars from State to Federal expenses.

In fact, the on call doctor is called to attend patients in the ED as part of his/her role as the doctor on-call for emergencies in a contract with CHSA. There is no prior arrangement, they are not private patients and usually this is not part of continuing care.

Quite how the Health Department continues to get away with this blatant cost shift from State to Federal (Medicare) coffers amazes me. And it is cold comfort to our patients - the rural ones are already disadvantaged enough, and the metro or interstate ones are flabbergasted to be charged fees for services in ED that they would receive for free at home. And of course the overseas tourists (and we see a fair share on Kangaroo Island) are less than impressed to receive a bill and aren't covered by Medicare.

Bottomline, the doctor on call for emergency medicine for CHSA doesn't get paid to come and see emergency patients, unless they are admitted to hospital for over four hours...

Let's hope this issue will be resolved in contract negotiations - although with two days to go until contracts expire, I am not optimistic.