Doctors' perspectives on the viability of rural practice

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Private practitioners play a vital role in meeting the health needs of rural communities. However, the prospect of operating a private practice business in rural Australia seems to be increasingly unattractive, because many communities are forced to recruit salaried or overseas-trained doctors. This study focuses on rural practices as businesses whose viability influences their attractiveness for the recruitment and retention of practitioners. The specific objectives are to ascertain which factors contribute to or threaten practice viability in rural areas, and whether they vary according to the degree of rurality or geographical remoteness. METHODS This study is based on data collected from a national study into the viability of rural general practice undertaken jointly by the Rural Doctors Association of Australia and Monash University School of Rural Health Bendigo. The Rural Remote and Metropolitan Area (RRMA) classification was used as the indicator of rurality. The study surveyed all general practitioners practising in rural or remote regions of Australia (RRMAs 3 to 7). Only practitioners with some financial interest in the practice were selected for this analysis. Free-text responses to the two questions 'What are the key factors contributing to the viability of your practice?' and 'What factors would put the viability of your practice at risk?' were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Factors were derived iteratively through higher-level aggregation of responses. Chi-square tests were used to make comparisons across the RRMA categories. RESULTS The national survey achieved a response rate of 35% of the entire population of GPs practising in RRMA 3 to 7 regions. Of these, 1050 respondents were relevant to this analysis. Seven major factors were identified by practitioners as the main contributors to practice viability. 'Practice characteristics' was nominated by 59% of respondents, followed by 'Income' (31%), 'Personal circumstances', 'Workforce' and 'Community characteristics' (all approximately 23%), 'GP activities and workload' (16%) and 'Professional support' (12%). Eight main factors were identified by practitioners as threats to viability. 'Workforce' was nominated by 57% of respondents, followed by 'Financial' (44%), 'Medico-legal' (33%), 'Administration-political' (16%), 'Community characteristics' (15%), 'GP-practice characteristics' and 'Personal circumstances' (10%) and 'Family circumstances' (3%). Across RRMA 3 to 5 the order of the percentage of respondents identifying each factor was generally consistent, with significant differences in the magnitude of the percentages for three contributing factors and four risk factors. While respondent numbers in RRMA 6 and 7 communities were low, significance testing did reveal differences between them and the rural communities on two contributing and one risk factor. CONCLUSIONS Practice viability is a major factor affecting the attractiveness of rural and remote practice for intending and existing GPs. Initiatives designed to contribute to viability will not be successful unless measures are also adopted to address perceived threats. This study highlights the systemic nature of the factors which contribute to and threaten practice viability. Although a primary component of practice viability is economic, with income from consultations being critical, the importance of the interrelationships between the main viability factors should not be underestimated. Clearly a multifaceted systemic response is required to overcome problems associated with rural workforce recruitment of future and burnout of current rural GPs.