The purpose of the project is to contribute to the outcome of the AHRG pathway as a formal and nationally recognised pathway for allied health professionals’ career development across all service sectors. Implementation involved two streams of work:

• Implementation of 40 allied health rural generalist training positions within private and non government organisations in rural and remote Australia. 
• Building mechanisms to establish

Lessons

Recommendations

Stakeholder engagement 

Distribution of training positions during AHRGWES implementation was not evenly spread across jurisdictions and sectors. It is unclear whether this is because of poor stakeholder engagement and/or lack of organisation ‘readiness’ or demand for this workforce initiative.

The project team recommends that future project iterations consider whether full jurisdiction and sector representation is the appropriate approach when assessing, prioritising and allocating training positions; and that promotional and marketing strategies are optimised to reach all sectors and jurisdictions. 

Project management 

The project management team found several necessary elements of AHRGWES implementation to be resource intensive, particularly with regards to assessing and allocating training positions (and the associated impacts on commencement and completion), onboarding and supporting organisations and trainees and managing reallocations of positions and resources for training positions that do not complete.

The project team recommends that future project iterations adopt internal strategies and processes that facilitate early uptake of participants; as well as take steps to optimise the organisation and trainee understanding of the AHRG Pathway to smooth the on-boarding process and set clear expectations of all levels of participating organisations.

AHRG Pathway level 

The project team made several observations regarding the two available AHRG Pathways. A preference of trainees and organisations toward the Level 2 pathway was observed, however due to cohort size and limited pathway completion at project close, these observations are viewed with caution. Additionally the project team observed issues with timing for trainees undertaking the pathway. Those doing the Level 1 pathway found it unrealistic to complete the pathway within the suggested 12 months. Some of those doing the Level 2 pathway found balancing work and other commitments difficult. The independent external evaluation may discover more about these issues.

The project team recommend that future projects implementing the AHRG pathway ensure that budget builds and deliverables allow flexibility for a preference for either pathway level depending on the relevant demand. Additionally future program guidelines review the current timelines and rules for completion to make these more achievable for trainees undertaking the pathway.

Monitoring and evaluation 

The independent external evaluation will add depth and detail to this project closure report contributing to the evidence for the AHRG Pathway. It is anticipated that lessons learned and recommendations will become more evident as the evaluation continues.

The project team has observed areas of interest for further investigation that would potentially add depth to the evidence base. These areas include understanding the market drivers for AHRG Pathway demand; factors that influence trainees that do not commence or withdrawal from the pathway; other potential measures or proxy measures of rural allied health services; and the attitudes of the allied health sector towards allied health rural generalism.