METHODS: Evaluate stakeholder engagement and training programme for psychiatrists, family medicine specialists, public health specialists, physicians, clinical psychologists, counsellors, and representatives from a patient support group. Evaluate the programme for applicability, as well as participant's knowledge and confidence in using key components.
RESULTS: The training was very well received in terms of content, training materials and facilitation style. Development of culturally specific materials will be needed. Improvement in the self-rating measurement for knowledge and confidence in using key Optimal Health Program components was reported at the completion of the 2-day training.
CONCLUSIONS: The Optimal Health Program has potential as a comprehensive socio-culturally responsive self-management programme that is relevant within mental health services and adaptable for task-sharing of mental health care in Malaysia.
CONCLUSIONS: There is limited peer-reviewed advice available on providing safe and effective temporary psychiatric consultant cover for patient care. We suggest a framework for reviewing the potential hazards and benefits of a temporary post, and planning for the role, guided by consideration of the following: caring for patients, supporting staff, working with peers, and understanding local healthcare systems and the local regulatory environment. Application of this reflective framework is informed by the psychiatrist's assessment of the temporary role, and consideration of the local service conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic equipoise, for psychiatric care, is an aspiration rather than a position easily achieved. In day-to-day clinical practice, there will be unexpected demands and barriers that cannot always be accommodated or surmounted. Psychiatrists can work collaboratively with patients, carers, and colleagues in conceptualising and care-planning to avoid extremes of therapeutic hubris and despair, and to adapt evidence-based care more effectively so that it is suited to the patient and their circumstances.
METHODS: out-of-pocket cost information was obtained from the Medical Costs Finder website, which extracted data from Services Australia's Medicare claims data in 2021-2022. Cost information for corresponding face-to-face, video, and telephone MBS items for outpatient psychiatric services was compared, including (1) Median specialist fees; (2) Median out-of-pocket payments; (3) Medicare reimbursement amounts; and (4) Proportions of patients subject to out-of-pocket fees.
RESULTS: Medicare reimbursements are identical for all comparable face-to-face and telepsychiatry items. Specialist fees for comparable items varied across face-to-face to telehealth options, with resulting differences in out-of-pocket costs. For video items, higher proportions of patients were not bulk-billed, with greater out-of-pocket costs than face-to-face items. However, the opposite was true for telephone items compared with face-to-face items.
CONCLUSIONS: Initial cost analyses of MBS telepsychiatry items indicate that telephone consultations incur the lowest out-of-pocket costs, followed by face-to-face and video consultations.