The landscape of health difficulties is endlessly changing in a manner which was partly projected and at a rate that was exclusively unpredicted. Indeed, ageing and the outcomes of poorly managed development and globalization have enhanced the global spread of infectious illnesses and raised the affliction of lasting and non-communicable ailments. Health systems are therefore not isolated from the rapid pace of revolution and renovation which is an indispensable part of modern globalization. In response to the challenge of a changing world, there is an establishment of Primary Health Network and Local Health District to cater for health needs (Osborn et al. 2015). Primary Health Network target to improve harmonization of care to guarantee that patients obtain veracious attention in the right place and at the accurate time. PHN is essential health care grounded on useful, systematically sound and publically conventional tactics and technology that are generally available to persons and relatives in the community via involvement at a cost affordable to them (Peck ham et al., 2015). On the other hand, Local Health District refers to a government organization which is on the front line of public health. Indeed, LHD, emanate from expectations by individuals that government ought to put into place a selection of general strategies to deal with health issues such as those posed by urbanization, climate change, gender refinement, and social stratification.
Health systems are often thought of consisting of health services such as health promotion and acute care. However, the extent of success of this organization depends heavily on how well they are supported and organized. Every organization promoting primary health care requires a well –organized and resourced corporate support functions to ensure adequate services to the community. Most of the significant barrier to facilitate sustainable fundamental healthcare innovation and effectiveness are to be found in the corporate domain. Also, there is a need to recognize the right of indigenous people to be active participants in developing and determining health programs. Denial of control in an individual’s life and stress produced could act as a critical cause of ill-health. Indeed, they ought to participate in delivering health services through their institutions when necessary (Pulvirenti, McMillan & Lawn, 2014). To achieve person-centred care, health needs of society require a resolution at an original level, and primary health care experts together with the communal necessitate to support as they build expertise and awareness needed to address local health needs.
Compare and contrast different functions of PHNs and LHDs
PHNs are independent organizations with sections carefully allied with those of public and territory local hospital networks (LHN). Additionally, they have skill founded boards that are learnt by medical bodies and public advisory commissions. Moreover, PHNs are recognized to mitigate the concerns of the division of health service distribution, promote the use of primary health care service and attain more proficient incorporation of primary health with critical care amenities (Mossialos et al. 2015).
PHNs in relation with LHDs emphasis on how a person experiences healthcare and the amount of connectedness practiced by patients when traversing the health system. Additionally, PHNs and LHDs have a role of supporting general practices in customary zones of public health such as health checks, smoking termination weight decrease and involvements engrossed on situations such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Both PHNs and LHDs work with other primary health care systems such as communal nurses and chemists concerning secondary and tertiary health care services (Baum, & Dwyer, 2014). Similarly, PHNs and LHDs plays a role to warrant that health amenities are readily available and personalized to public requirements. Indeed the dual provides a vital role in producing cost savings via decreasing possibly avoidable hospitalization and enhance care organization especially for those at risk of pitiable health outcomes. Comparatively PHNs work collaboratively with LHDs to minimize hospital admission re-admission.
In spite of similarities between PHNs and LHDs, there are some differences. PHNs is a system that seeks to provide efficient, unified and responsible care for everybody with chronic illness and various-comorbidities (Hegarty et al. 2015). On the contrary, LHDs are state-based entities fully funded by a state government in which they help create and maintain healthier conditions in communities despite the local community not always recognizing work done by local health districts. PHNs tend to involve communities and patients in all stages systematically (Booth et al., 2016). It entails PHNs to work with societies to recognize desires and ambitions as well as work with patients and caregivers to improve quality and safety. Indeed, PHNs are directed by the patient knowledge of the organization and consumer-led concepts for health system enhancement. In contrast, LHDs seldom involves community since it an already commissioned cycle.
Regarding accountability, LHDs tend to cover mainly urban areas which are characterized by the high accessibility of services. In contrast, PHNs are widely found in rural and remote communities. Subsequently, PHNs provide promotion at both homegrown and national levels where there is a need for structural change (Ducket &, Willcox, 2015). Indeed, they also offer better health advancement and upgraded health knowledge via curriculums for provider and user target groups. PHNs are tasked with cost-effectively solving service delivery gaps. Occasionally, PHNs may select to fill the existing gap by backing new amenities through their minor, unrestricted flexible funding budget.
Public Health Networks is funded by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to deliver services in rural and remote communities. However, there are specific incidences in which PHNs tend to be partially funded by the federal government. In contrast, local health districts are fully supported by a national government and frequently report to the mayor, city council county panel of health or county commission (Bell, Wilson, Bissonnette & Shah, 2013).
Integration of both PHNs and LHDs faces a problem of increased catchment which makes their capability to be useful quite hard. Furthermore, it will be difficult for PHNs and LHDs to reveal every society’s requirements in their preparation and sustenance for local primary health care services (McGrail & Humphreys, 2014). People from different zones tend to have different needs. Also, there is a challenge of appropriate financial resource and staff, especially in rural areas.
Local health districts should have an expression in the resolve of strategies and procedures for the advance of national public health programs. LHDs should progress a mutual understanding of the roles and accountabilities of PHNs, encompassing their duties in health advancement and addressing common elements of health. Also, LHDs should pursue to create a tactical partnership with PHNs that target to resolve variances in application and culture and advance the harmonization of primary health care. PHNs should certify that network activity attains assessable short and long-term benefits. PHNs ought to dedicate resources to stimulating engagement with LHDs and other shareholders to progress strategic partnership in planning and program execution (McMillan et al. 2013). State and the federal government should recognize that PHNs and LHDs entail long-term investment, funding, and organizational stability and support to certify they have enough time and conviction to build and maintain associations.
Overall PHNs and LHDs constitute a significant role in advancing Australia to excellent person-centred healthcare. Despite the primary health care ought to form the backbone of a health system and that policy to be directed towards conveying a reorientation towards and strengthening of primary health care. The imminent for health is person-centred care and to accomplish it the health needs of a community ought to be undertaken at a local level. Also, it typified that the system is under significant cost pressure and the focus has to be on immediate measures to minimize the demand for a hospital (Novak et al., 2012). Despite intense political will to reduce health care cost, it does not appear to extend to the sufficient political will to contrast powerful vested interests which drive increased costs. Primary health network is an indispensable part of health care. It is essential principles are equity, health promotion, disease inhibition community partaking, and suitable health expertise as well as the multi-sectorial tactic. Health promotion and disease prevention processes involve support from the public, health policy and multi-disciplinary method.
Baum F, Dwyer J. Australian public policy: progressive ideas in the neoliberal ascendency. Bristol (UK): Policy Press at the University of Bristol; 2014. Part 3, the accidental logic of health policy in Australia; p. 198.
Bell, S., Wilson, K., Bissonnette, L., & Shah, T. (2013). Access to primary health care: does neighborhood of residence matter?. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(1), 85-105.
Booth, M., Hill, G., Moore, M. J., Dalla, D., Moore, M., & Messenger, A. (2016). The new Australian Primary Health Networks: how will they integrate public health and primary care? Public Health Res Pract, 26(1), e2611603.
Duckett, S., & Willcox, S. (2015). The Australian health care system (No. Ed. 5). Oxford University Press.
Hegarty, K. L., O’Doherty, L. J., Chondros, P., Valpied, J., Taft, A. J., Astbury, J., ... & Gunn, J. M. (2013). Effect of type and severity of intimate partner violence on women’s health and service use: findings from a primary care trial of women afraid of their partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 273-294.
McMillan, S. S., Kendall, E., Sav, A., King, M. A., Whitty, J. A., Kelly, F., & Wheeler, A. J. (2013). Patient-centered approaches to health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Medical Care Research and Review, 70(6), 567-596.
McGrail, M. R., & Humphreys, J. S. (2014). Measuring spatial accessibility to primary health care services: Utilising dynamic catchment sizes. Applied Geography, 54, 182-188.
Mossialos, E., Courtin, E., Naci, H., Benrimoj, S., Bouvy, M., Farris, K., ... & Sketris, I. (2015). From “retailers” to health care providers: transforming the role of community pharmacists in chronic disease management. Health Policy, 119(5), 628-639.
Novak, T., Scanlon, J., McCall, D., MacDonald, N., & Clarke, T. (2012). Pilot study of a sensory room in an acute inpatient psychiatric unit. Australasian Psychiatry, 20(5), 401-406.
Osborn, R., Moulds, D., Schneider, E. C., Doty, M. M., Squires, D., & Sarnak, D. O. (2015). Primary care physicians in ten countries report challenges caring for patients with complex health needs. Health Affairs, 34(12), 2104-2112.
Peck ham, S., Falconer, J., Gilliam, S., Hann, A., Kendall, S., Nanchahal, K. & Wallace, A. (2015). The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study. Health Services and Delivery Research, 3(29).
Pulvirenti, M., McMillan, J., & Lawn, S. (2014). Empowerment, patient centred care and self?management. Health Expectations, 17(3), 303-310.