A total of 31 interviews were conducted with representatives from aged care facilities who sent staff to Palliative Care toolkit training. The final sample of interviewees included participants from all states and territories. Attempts were made to recruit additional participants, however, the target of 40 participants was not reached.
Table below provides an outline of numbers of participants from each state and territory, their geographic location and facility size. Good representation was achieved across all categories.
Table Participants by state
State
|
Number
|
Rural/Regional
|
Metropolitan
|
Large
|
Small
|
NSW
|
7
|
4
|
3
|
4
|
3
|
NT
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
Queensland
|
7
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
SA
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
Tas
|
3
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
Victoria
|
6
|
3
|
3
|
4
|
2
|
WA
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
2
|
Total
|
31
|
16
|
15
|
16
|
15
|
Participants were asked at what level of implementation their facility was at in regards to the Palliative Care toolkit. Table provides an outline of the level of implementation by state. Over a quarter of facilities (25.8%) were planning to implement the toolkit but there was also a substantial number of participants (22.6%) whose facility had no plans to implement the toolkit. Just over half of facilities had either ‘fully implemented’ or have ‘commenced implementation’ (n=16).
Table Level of implementation by state
Table compares the level of implementation between metropolitan and rural/regional facilities. Metropolitan facilities appear more likely to be implementing the toolkit (commenced or fully implemented, 35%, n=11).
Table Level of implementation by location
|
Metropolitan
|
Rural/regional
|
Total
|
We have fully implemented the toolkit
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
We have commenced implementation
|
9
|
4
|
13
|
We are planning to implement it
|
2
|
6
|
8
|
We have no plans to implement it
|
2
|
5
|
7
|
Total
|
15
|
16
|
31
|
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
