Shortages of skills needed to deliver optimal health care in rural and remote locations raises questions about using extended scopes of practice or advanced practice models in a range of health professions. The nurse practitioner (NP) model was introduced to address health service gaps; however, its sustainability has been questioned, while other extended scope of practice roles have not progressed in Australia. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of NPs and their colleagues about barriers to and enablers of extended scope of practice and consider the relevance of the findings to other health professions. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with primary, nurse practitioner informants, who were also invited to nominate up to two colleagues, as secondary informants. Data analysis was guided by a multi-level, socio-institutional lens of macro-, meso- and micro-perspectives. Fifteen primary informants and five colleagues were interviewed from various rural and remote locations. There was a fairly even distribution of informants across primary, aged, chronic and emergency or critical care roles. Key barriers and enablers at each level of analysis were identified. At the macro-level were legal, regulatory, and economic barriers and enablers, as well as job availability. The meso-level concerned local health service and community factors, such as attitudes and support from managers and patients. The micro-level relates to day-to-day practice. Role clarity was of considerable importance, along with embedded professional hierarchies and traditional role expectations influencing interactions with individual colleagues. Given a lack of understanding of NP scope of practice, NPs often had to expend effort promoting and advocating for their roles. For communities to benefit from extended scope of practice models of health service delivery, energy needs to be directed towards addressing legislative and regulatory barriers. To be successful, extended scope of practice roles must be promoted with managers and decision-makers, who may have limited understanding of the clinical importance. Support is also important from other members of the interprofessional health care team.

The current novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has effected a significant education (HPE) can occur. Advice for strict, widespread social change in the way industry-based and tertiary health professions distancing has catalysed the transformation of course delivery into fully online design across nations. This is problematic for HPE, which has traditionally relied on face-to-face learner interaction, in the form of skills laboratories, simulation training and industry based clinical placements. The transition to online-only course delivery has brought with it a need to address particular issues regarding the construction and delivery of quality curricula and education activities. It is in this context that regional, rural and remote health professionals and academics can provide invaluable insights into the use of technology to overcome the tyranny of distance, promote high quality online HPE and enable the ongoing development of communities of practice. This article is the first in a series addressing the risks and opportunities in the current transition to online HPE, providing practical solutions for educators who are now unable to embrace more traditional face-to-face HPE delivery methods and activities.

Uneven distribution of the medical workforce is globally recognised, with widespread rural health workforce shortages. There has been substantial research on factors affecting recruitment and retention of rural doctors, but little has been done to establish the motives and conditions that encourage allied health professionals to practice rurally. This study aims to identify aspects of recruitment and retention of rural allied health professionals using qualitative methodology.

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has become more common for rapid evaluation. Applications are limited by lack of training of users, difficulty maintaining ultrasound competencies, access to equipment for optimal imaging, and limitations in quality control. Such barriers exist in low-resource, underserved health care settings. Objective: The aim was to explore the use of POCUS in under-resourced health care settings, such as rural and remote locations in Australia and other countries. Key variables include health outcomes, quality of care, service availability, examinations types performed, equipment used, who performs the examinations, and the ultrasound training received. Methods: Literature was identified via CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, plus grey literature. Recommended guidelines were followed, and only research-based articles were included, with searches limited to English language and 2010–present. Results: After screening, 23 articles were reviewed. No studies had low risk of bias and, overall, the quality was poor and only two studies used random sampling. The majority were from developing countries, with only one performed in Australia. Echocardiographic screening in schools was common. Others included emergency department (ED) patients, abdominal aorta screening, obstetric scans, and intensive care unit (ICU) management. Operators included ED doctors, medical students, nurses, community healthcare workers and general practitioners, who received limited training in protocol-driven scanning, often monitored by experts. In comparison to clinical assessment, standard ultrasound or other imaging, accuracy was of the order of 70– 95%, depending on the condition, with high efficacy in improving patient care. Conclusion: Lack of studies of POCUS in Australia and other developed countries suggests a need for further research. Current evidence supports use of limited ultrasound using portable machines in locations with limited access to diagnostic ultrasound performed by sonographers, which has the potential to improve health outcomes in under-resourced communities in Australia and elsewhere.