Taxation has been suggested as a possible preventive strategy to address the serious public health concern of childhood obesity. Understanding the public’s viewpoint on the potential role of taxation is vital to inform policy decisions if they are to be acceptable to the wider community. A Citizens’ Jury is a deliberative method for engaging the public in decision making and can assist in setting policy agendas. A Citizens’ Jury was conducted in Brisbane, Australia in May 2013 to answer the question: Is taxation on food and drinks an acceptable strategy to the public in order to reduce rates of childhood obesity? Citizens were randomly selected from the electoral roll and invited to participate. Thirteen members were purposively sampled from those expressing interest to broadly reflect the diversity of the Australian public. Over two days, participants were presented with evidence on the topic by experts, were able to question witnesses and deliberate on the evidence. The jurors unanimously supported taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks but generally did not support taxation on processed meats, snack foods and foods eaten/ purchased outside the home. They also supported taxation on snack foods on the condition that traffic light labelling was also introduced. Though they were not specifically asked to deliberate strategies outside of taxation, the jurors strongly recommended more nutritional information on all food packaging using the traffic light and teaspoon labelling systems for sugar, salt and fat content. The Citizens’ Jury suggests that the general public may support taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks to reduce rates of obesity in children. Regulatory reforms of taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks and improved labelling of nutritional information on product packaging were strongly supported by all members of the jury. These reforms should be considered by governments to prevent childhood obesity and the future burden on society from the consequences of obesity.

Objective: Long specialist out-patient waitlists are common in public health facilities, but not all patients require consultation with a medical specialist. Studies of single allied health primary contact services have shown they provide timely, appropriate care and reduce demand on medical specialist out-patient waitlists. This study evaluated the collective benefits across multiple allied health primary contact services and models to determine their clinical effectiveness, safety, timeliness of care and impact on medical specialist out-patient waitlists. Method: Using a prospective observational study design, data were collected and analysed for patients attending 47 allied health primary contact services in Queensland public hospitals over a 2-year period. Outcomes reported are global status, adverse events, wait times and impact on medical specialist out-patient waitlists. Results: In all, 10 634 patients were managed in and discharged from the allied health services. Most adult patients (80%) who attended at least two consultations reported an improvement in health status. No adverse events were attributed to the model of care. Approximately 68%, 44% and 90% of urgent, semi-urgent and non-urgent out-patients respectively were seen within clinically recommended time frames. Between 35% and 89% of patients were removed from out-patient waitlists without medical specialist consultation across the service models. Conclusions: Allied health primary contact services provide safe, effective and timely care. The impact on medical specialist out-patient waitlists varied depending on service model and pathway characteristics. What is known about this topic?: Most studies of allied health primary contact services have focused on the management of patients on orthopaedic specialist out-patient waitlists by a physiotherapist. These studies of either individual services or groups of services with the same model cite benefits, including reduced waiting times, high levels of patient and referrer satisfaction, improved conversion to surgery, cost-effectiveness and more effective utilisation of medical specialists. What does this paper add?: This paper highlights that, collectively, allied health primary contact services are safe, effective and provide timely care. The proportion of patients independently managed and removed from various medical specialist out-patient waitlists and the services involved are reported, demonstrating the variety of service models. This study reports outcomes for primary contact services for which there is a dearth of published literature, including dietician services for patients on gastroenterology waitlists, speech pathology and audiology services for patients on ear, nose and throat waitlists, occupational therapy hand services for patients on orthopaedic waitlists and physiotherapy led pelvic-health services for patients on gynaecology waitlists. Possibilities for efficiency gains are identified and discussed. What are the implications for practitioners?: Health service managers should consider allied health primary contact services as a viable option to increase specialist out-patient capacity. Service model characteristics that maximise impact on medical specialist out-patient waitlist management are highlighted to inform resource allocation.

Objective: Faced with longstanding and increasing demand for specialist out-patient appointments that was unable to be met through usual medical consultant led care, Metro North Hospital and Health Service in 2014–15 established 11 allied health primary contact out-patient models of care. Methods: The models involved six different allied health professions and nine specialist out-patient departments. Results: All the allied health models have been endorsed for continuation following demonstration of their contribution to managing demand on specialist out-patient services. Conclusion: This paper describes key features of the allied health primary contact models of care and presents preliminary data including new case throughput, effect on wait times and enablers and challenges for clinic establishment. What is known about the topic?: Allied health clinics have been demonstrated to result in high patient, referrer and consultant satisfaction, and are a cost-effective management strategy for wait list demand. In Queensland, physiotherapy-led orthopaedic clinics have been operating since 2005. What does this paper add?: This paper describes the establishment of 11 allied health primary contact models of care in speciality out-patient areas including Ear, Nose and Throat, Gynaecology, Urology, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Orthopaedics and Plastic Surgery, and involving speech pathologists, audiologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and podiatrists as primary contact practitioners. Observations of enablers for and challenges to implementation are presented as key lessons. What are the implications for practitioners?: The new allied health primary contact models of care described in this paper should be considered by health service executives, allied health leaders and specialist out-patient departments as one strategy to address unacceptably long specialist wait lists.

Advanced physiotherapist-led services have been embedded in specialist orthopaedic and neurosurgical outpatient departments across Queensland, Australia, to ameliorate capacity constraints. Simulation modelling has been used to inform the optimal scale and professional mix of services required to match patient demand. The context and the value of simulation modelling in service planning remain unclear. We aimed to examine the adoption, context and costs of using simulation modelling recommendations to inform service planning. Using an implementation science approach, we undertook a prospective, qualitative evaluation to assess the use of discrete event simulation modelling recommendations for service re-design and to explore stakeholder perspectives about the role of simulation modelling in service planning. Five orthopaedic and neurosurgical services in Queensland, Australia, were selected to maximise variation in implementation effectiveness. We used the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) to guide the facilitation and analysis of the stakeholder focus group discussions. We conducted a prospective costing analysis in each service to estimate the costs associated with using simulation modelling to inform service planning. Four of the five services demonstrated adoption by inclusion of modelling recommendations into proposals for service re-design. Four CFIR constructs distinguished and two CFIR constructs did not distinguish between high versus mixed implementation effectiveness. We identified additional constructs that did not map onto CFIR. The mean cost of implementation was AU$34,553 per site (standard deviation = AU$737). To our knowledge, this is the first time the context of implementing simulation modelling recommendations in a health care setting, using a validated framework, has been examined. Our findings may provide valuable insights to increase the uptake of healthcare modelling recommendations in service planning.