S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

19

• Very remote nurses work 6.6 hours per week more that major city nurses; for each very remote nurse working 46 weeks per year, this equates to a total of 303.6 more hours per year—for those working on a 38-hour per week basis, the equivalent of an additional 7.9 weeks per year. Despite the challenges presented for nurses working remotely, there are also attractions. Previous exposure to a remote lifestyle (particularly if the nurse grew up in the country area) or previous remote work experience were the most compelling reasons for nurses to choose remote area employment in Hegney, McCarthy, Rogers-Clark and Gorman’s study (2002). Remote lifestyles with strong social networks and close proximity to family and friends are major attractions (Hegney et al., 1997; Hegney et al., 2002). Professional issues such as employment opportunities, career advancement and extended practice are also strong positive influences (Hegney, 1997; Hegney et al., 2002). Other pragmatic commentators have stated that ‘“Fly In Fly Out”’ (FIFO) health services should be seen not as replacements for local healthcare, but as part of the necessary compromise between the tyranny of distance and equity of access to health services’ (Hanley, 2012, p. 48). The researcher’s opinion is that while a FIFO workforce is not ideal, it provides access to mental healthcare services that the remote population would not otherwise receive given current circumstances. One challenge to this view mounted by Wakerman, Curry and McEldowney (2012) is that, on a comparative cost basis, three to four nurse practitioners can competently undertake 90% of the tasks undertaken by GPs (Hooker, 2006) with equivalent patient outcomes (Laurant et al., 2005; Martínez-González, Tandjung, Djalali & Rosemann, 2015; Martínez-González et al., 2014; Mundinger et al., 2000). While none of the studies mentioned directly relate to remote Australia or remote