Search

Objective: To provide the first document map of sustainability and decarbonisation actions across the Australian healthcare sector, as reported in publicly available documents online, and to identify gaps in actions. Methods: Healthcare providers were identified across all state and territories. Structured Google searches between August and December 2022 were followed by document searches. Updates were undertaken, most recently in December 2023. Targeted documents included position statements, strategies, and reports. Key points from these documents pertaining to sustainability and/or decarbonisation were extracted and descriptively analysed. Results: A total of 294 documents were included, mostly focused on power generation, transport, building design, and circular procurement/waste pathways. In contrast, relatively few plans for decarbonisation of clinical care were identified (n = 42). National and two state governments (New South Wales, Western Australia) have established healthcare sustainability and decarbonisation units, and two further states have publicly committed to doing so (Queensland, Tasmania). However, these documents generally reported separate, siloed actions. While attempts were made to make this review comprehensive, some documents may have been missed or are only available inside an organisation, and new actions will continue to emerge. Conclusion: Broad sustainability plans have been developed by many healthcare providers; however, to achieve net zero, decarbonising of clinical practices is also needed, and this is where the least action is currently occurring. To decarbonise clinical care, the sector needs to come together in a more coordinated way. What is known about the topic? Little is known about what actions are occurring to make healthcare more sustainable and to reduce the carbon footprint of healthcare in Australia. What does this paper add? This paper provides a snapshot of publicly available documents from healthcare providers and professional organisations as they relate to healthcare sustainability and helps reveal the gaps and siloed nature of current actions. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper can help jurisdictions identify gaps or areas for improvement and may aid in targeted and coordinated interventions, especially as they relate to decarbonised clinical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: People who inject drugs experience stigma across multiple settings, including when accessing health‐care services, however, comparatively little is known about experiences of stigma towards other groups of people who use illegal drugs. This paper examines experience of, and factors associated with, stigma among two samples of people who use illegal drugs when visiting both specialist alcohol and other drug (AOD) and general health‐care services. Methods: Australians who regularly (i.e., ≥monthly) inject drugs (n = 879; illicit drug reporting system [IDRS]) or use ecstasy and/or other illegal stimulants (n = 700; ecstasy and related drugs reporting system [EDRS]) were surveyed between April and July 2022 about past 6‐month experience of stigma in the above services. Multi‐variable regression analyses were performed to determine the socio‐demographic, drug use and health factors associated with stigma. Results: Experiences of stigma in general health‐care services were more common among IDRS (40%) than EDRS (24%; p < 0.001) participants, however, experiences were comparable in specialist AOD health‐care settings (22% and 20%, respectively; p = 0.687). Gender identity and experiencing high psychological distress were associated with experiencing stigma across both samples. Past‐year overdose was associated with experiencing stigma among the IDRS sample, while unstable housing and incomplete high school education were associated with experiencing stigma in the EDRS sample. Discussion and Conclusions: Experiences of stigma when accessing health‐care services are relatively common across different populations of people who use illegal drugs. Our findings highlight the multiple and intersecting dimensions of stigma and provide further support for recent calls for a universal precautions approach to stigma in health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This work aims to explore staff perceptions of (1) the effectiveness of organizational communication during the COVID‐19 pandemic and (2) the impact of organizational communication on staff well‐being and ability to progress their work and patient care. Background: Effective coordination and communication are essential in a pandemic management response. However, the effectiveness of communication strategies used during the COVID‐19 pandemic is not well understood. Design: An exploratory cross‐sectional research design was used. A 33‐item survey tool was created for the study. Methods: The study was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Western Australia. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants from nursing, medical, allied health services, administrative and clerical, and personal support services (N = 325). Data were collected between December 2020 and May 2021. Results: Overall, all occupational groups found working during the COVID‐19 pandemic stressful, and all groups wanted accessible and accurate communication from management and new policies, procedures, and protocols for future outbreaks. Conclusions: The use of occupational group‐relevant strategies and COVID‐19 protocols, as well as the on‐going use of email, face‐to‐face meetings with debrief sessions, are needed to improve communication and support staff to fulfil their roles. Summary statement: What is already known about the topic? Effective coordination and communication that is timely and two‐way in nature, is an essential part of a pandemic management response. What this paper adds? All occupational groups found working during the COVID‐19 pandemic stressful; all groups wanted accessible and accurate communication from management and new policies, procedures, and protocols for future outbreaks. The implications of this paper: Managing a pandemic situation in health care settings is challenging for all levels of staff including management and all occupational work groups.The use of occupational group‐relevant strategies and COVID‐19 protocols, as well as the on‐going use of email, face‐to‐face meetings with debrief sessions, are needed to improve communication and support staff to fulfil their roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds can experience racism and race-based discrimination in the health system, enduring unfair and inferior treatment that negatively affects physical and mental health and well-being and may, in some cases, lead to premature and avoidable death. Racism within the health system also acts as a deterrent to health care access because individuals may choose to avoid healthcare settings for fear of repeated exposure to racism. Racism and its impacts in health are well documented and health care-related regulatory organisations and antidiscrimination commissions in Australia are the recipients of racism complaints that occur within the health system. However, the extent and nature of complaints of racism in healthcare settings (i.e. self-reported incidents of racism) and how they are managed by regulatory organisations and antidiscrimination commissions are not well understood. This paper provides a summary of existing approaches to complaints in the Australian health system related to healthcare regulatory organisations and antidiscrimination commissions. We offer recommendations for improvements to data collection and dissemination of racism complaints to better understand the nature and extent of racism and race-based discrimination in the health system, and thus inform changes to process and practices that will reduce the incidence of racism and improve health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across the globe, people are not equitably included or respected by health services. This results in some people being 'hardly reached' and having less access to safe and appropriate care. While some health services have adopted specific agendas to increase inclusion, these services can struggle to implement such strategies because the underlying reasons for exclusion have not been addressed. This calls for preparation prior to implementation of inclusion approaches that deconstructs discourses and practices of exclusion. This paper presents a pre-inclusion framework that seeks to deconstruct exclusion in health services. Authors developed this framework from action research in four 'mainstream' regional health services in southeast Australia over five years. Research identified dominant discourses of exclusion among staff in these services. The study also identified common experiences of residents hardly reached by these services. Following, a range of change activities were undertaken within these services to deconstruct exclusion. Researchers also kept journals, reflected on their impact, and identified lessons learned from trying to deconstruct exclusion. Triangulating these analyses, researchers developed an interdisciplinary framework that weaves together Foucauldian theory on power/discourse with continuous quality improvement processes to embed cultural humility and voices of the hardly reached in health care. The framework outlines five foundational concepts (power as productive, deconstruction, use of continuous quality improvement processes, cultural humility and voices of service users), followed by six principles (a journey, expect resistance, whole of service approach, make visible the reasons for change, we are all cultural beings and people centred care) and six actions undertaken within health services (commitment, assessment of exclusion, action plans, structural change, reflective discussions and engagement). Until such approaches to deconstruct exclusion are implemented, inclusive agendas are likely to be ineffective. • Before inclusion can be achieved, reasons for exclusion must be challenged. • Pre-inclusion readies a health service for engagement with those hardly reached. • This framework weaves Foucault, cultural humility, those hardly reached and CQI. • The framework aims to rupture power relations to privilege discourses of service users. • Health practitioners learn about their privilege and actions of exclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]