Injured Workers' Experiences of General Practitioner Care Across Dual Healthcare Funding Systems: A Qualitative Study in an Australian Workers' Compensation Context.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Preeti Maharjan, Tessa Keegel, Michael Di Donato, Daniel Griffiths, Danielle Mazza, Alex Collie
{"title":"Injured Workers' Experiences of General Practitioner Care Across Dual Healthcare Funding Systems: A Qualitative Study in an Australian Workers' Compensation Context.","authors":"Preeti Maharjan, Tessa Keegel, Michael Di Donato, Daniel Griffiths, Danielle Mazza, Alex Collie","doi":"10.1007/s10926-026-10434-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Injured workers often navigate healthcare services funded by multiple payers with distinct eligibility and funding rules. In Australia, general practitioner (GP) care is subsidised through the publicly funded health insurance system (Medicare). Injured workers may also access care funded by the workers' compensation system for work-related conditions. Consequently, injured workers may be required to navigate two healthcare funding systems simultaneously. This study examined injured workers' experiences of GP care across both systems to inform improved patient care and system reform.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve participants with work-related musculoskeletal injuries were recruited. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, following an inductive approach to coding and identifying key themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three themes were identified: (1) \"Navigating dual care funding systems\", where participants described challenges accessing care across workers' compensation and Medicare; (2) \"Workers' compensation systemic strains on care\", where systemic pressures within workers' compensation affected workers' access to and GPs' delivery of care; and (3) \"GPs' management of workers' compensation-related tasks\", where care experiences varied depending on how individual GPs approached workers' compensation-related tasks.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Workers described significant challenges arising from system fragmentation, administrative demands, and variability in GPs 'willingness to engage with the workers' compensation process. These experiences shaped access, continuity, and quality of care received. Workers preferred whole-person care, often changing GPs when their regular GP refused to engage with the workers' compensation system. Strengthening coordination between funding systems, streamlining administrative processes, and improving GP training could improve the care experiences. These findings highlight the system-level reforms prioritising patient experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-026-10434-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Injured workers often navigate healthcare services funded by multiple payers with distinct eligibility and funding rules. In Australia, general practitioner (GP) care is subsidised through the publicly funded health insurance system (Medicare). Injured workers may also access care funded by the workers' compensation system for work-related conditions. Consequently, injured workers may be required to navigate two healthcare funding systems simultaneously. This study examined injured workers' experiences of GP care across both systems to inform improved patient care and system reform.

Methods: Twelve participants with work-related musculoskeletal injuries were recruited. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, following an inductive approach to coding and identifying key themes.

Results: Three themes were identified: (1) "Navigating dual care funding systems", where participants described challenges accessing care across workers' compensation and Medicare; (2) "Workers' compensation systemic strains on care", where systemic pressures within workers' compensation affected workers' access to and GPs' delivery of care; and (3) "GPs' management of workers' compensation-related tasks", where care experiences varied depending on how individual GPs approached workers' compensation-related tasks.

Conclusion: Workers described significant challenges arising from system fragmentation, administrative demands, and variability in GPs 'willingness to engage with the workers' compensation process. These experiences shaped access, continuity, and quality of care received. Workers preferred whole-person care, often changing GPs when their regular GP refused to engage with the workers' compensation system. Strengthening coordination between funding systems, streamlining administrative processes, and improving GP training could improve the care experiences. These findings highlight the system-level reforms prioritising patient experience.

受伤工人的全科医生护理的经验跨双重医疗资助系统:在澳大利亚工人赔偿背景下的定性研究。
背景:受伤工人往往导航医疗保健服务由不同的资格和资助规则的多个支付者资助。在澳大利亚,全科医生(GP)护理通过公共资助的医疗保险系统(Medicare)得到补贴。受伤工人也可以获得由工伤赔偿制度资助的与工作有关的护理。因此,受伤的工人可能需要同时导航两个医疗资助系统。本研究考察了受伤工人的全科医生护理经验跨越两个系统,以告知改善病人护理和系统改革。方法:招募了12名与工作有关的肌肉骨骼损伤的参与者。数据分析使用反身性专题分析,以下归纳方法编码和确定关键主题。结果:确定了三个主题:(1)“导航双重医疗资助系统”,参与者描述了在工人补偿和医疗保险中获得医疗服务的挑战;(2)“工人补偿对护理的系统性压力”,其中工人补偿中的系统性压力影响了工人获得护理和全科医生提供护理的机会;(3)“全科医生对员工补偿相关任务的管理”,其中护理经验因个体全科医生处理员工补偿相关任务的方式而异。结论:员工描述了系统碎片化、管理需求和全科医生参与员工补偿过程意愿的可变性所带来的重大挑战。这些经历塑造了获得护理的机会、连续性和质量。工人们更喜欢全人护理,当他们的普通全科医生拒绝参与工人赔偿制度时,他们经常更换全科医生。加强供资系统之间的协调、简化行政程序和改进全科医生培训可以改善护理经验。这些发现强调了优先考虑患者体验的系统级改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
12.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law.  A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书