Search

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) peoples with cardiac disease in Australia have worse outcomes than non-Indigenous people with cardiac disease. We hypothesised that the implementation of a culturally informed model of care for Indigenous patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) would improve their clinical outcomes., Methods: For this pre-post, quasi-experimental, interventional study, cohorts of Indigenous patients before and after the implementation of a model of care were compared. The novel, culturally informed, multidisciplinary-team model of care was a local programme of care developed to reduce morbidity and mortality from cardiac conditions among Indigenous Australians. All index admissions in the 24-month pre-implementation period (Jan 1 2013, to Dec 31, 2014) were analysed, as were all index admissions in the 12-month post-implementation period (Oct 1, 2015, to Sept 30, 2016). Comparisons were also made with non-Indigenous cohorts in the same timeframes. Admissions were excluded if the patient did not survive to hospital discharge. The study was conducted at Princess Alexandra Hospital, a tertiary hospital in metropolitan Brisbane (QLD, Australia). Data on presentation, comorbidities, investigations, treatment, and for outcomes were manually collected from a consolidated clinical information application. Mortality data were obtained from the Queensland Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages. The primary outcome was a composite of death, acute myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularisation, and cardiac readmission at 90 days after index admission, assessed in all patients., Findings: The Indigenous cohorts included 199 patients admitted with ACS before the model of care was implemented (85 [43%] were female and 114 [57%] were male) and 119 admitted post-implementation (62 [52%] were female and 57 [48%] were male). The non-Indigenous cohorts included 440 patients with ACS before the model of care was implemented (140 [32%] were female and 300 [68%] were male) and 467 admitted post-implementation (143 [31%] were female and 324 [69%] were male). Compared with the pre-implementation group, Indigenous patients admitted post-implementation had a significant reduction in the primary outcome (67 [34%] of 199 vs 24 [20%] of 119; hazard ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·40-0·90; p=0·012), which was driven by a reduction in unplanned cardiac readmissions (64 [32%] of 199 vs 21 [18%] of 119; 0·55, 0·35-0·85; p=0·0060). There was no significant change in non-Indigenous patients between the pre-implementation and post-implementation timeframes in the composite endpoint at 90 days (81 [18%] of 440 vs 93 [20%] of 467; 1·08, 0·83-1·41; p=0·54). Pre-implementation, there was significantly more incidence of the primary outcome in Indigenous patients than non-Indigenous patients (p<0·0001), with no significant difference in the post-implementation period (p=0·92)., Interpretation: Clinical outcomes for Indigenous patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Australia improved after implementation of a culturally informed model of care, with a reduction in the disparity in incidence of primary endpoints that existed between Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients before implementation., Funding: Queensland Department of Health Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Division (now First Nations Health Office)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests. TK, SR, and DP are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

This case study describes the development, implementation and review of a sustainable and culturally sensitive procedure for a hospital-funded discharge medicine subsidy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients registered with the Closing the Gap (CTG) program discharging from a public hospital. A 7-day fully subsidised medication supply was approved to be offered to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients admitted under cardiac care teams, including cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery patients. Patients were offered the option of a 7-day supply free of cost to them or a full Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) supply if preferred. A general practitioner (GP) appointment was organised within 7 days of discharge to ensure patients received ongoing supply of their medications as well as timely clinical review after discharge. Over a 34-month period from September 2015 to June 2018, 535 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients were admitted to the hospital under cardiac care teams. Of these patients, 296 received a subsidised discharge medication supply with a total cost of A$6314.56 to the hospital over the trial period, with a mean cost of A$21.26 per discharge. The provision of subsidised medications through the CTG program has improved the continuity of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients. The culturally sensitive approach is well received and has allowed smooth transition back to the community. This site-specific and state-based funding model was found to be financially sustainable at a public hospital.

Indigenous patient navigator (IPN) programmes show promise in addressing barriers to cancer care and facilitation of patient self-efficacy. The purpose of this paper is to describe and reflect upon the experience of training an IPN and implementation of the intervention in the Australian context with Indigenous cancer patients. Randomised clinical trial might provide the best available evaluation measure of an intervention but caution should be taken in the implementation process. Socio-cultural aspects and training can affect the conduct of this type of intervention. We report here five issues needing consideration prior to implementing such intervention. Specifically: (1) recognition of the collective bonds within Indigenous community and understanding by IPN of the degree of personal assistance perceived as not intrusive by the patient; (2) conduct ongoing evaluation of the different role of an IPN involved in this intervention care provider vs. researcher. (3) meaningful engagement develops from a trusting/collaborative relationship between research team and study site staff which may not occur in the study time frame; (4) existing skills as well as training provided may not translate in the IPN understanding and aligning with the study objectives/research values; (5) recruitment of participants requires innovative and highly flexible strategies to be successful., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)