Search

Background: Primary health care (PHC) services are complex systems, shaped by an interplay of factors at individual, organisational and broader system levels. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC services, closer relationships with the people they serve, local knowledge of community, and cultural awareness are critical. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) has proven to be an effective process for identification of priority issues in health care delivery and for instigating the design, implementation and evaluation of improvement interventions in these settings. However, wide-scale variation in care quality persists partly due to the mismatch between CQI interventions and context. Methods: This critical review of implementation frameworks for CQI in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care was conducted in two phases: (1) a review of primary published implementation frameworks used in PHC contexts, and (2) a comparison of key features of these frameworks with quality concepts identified by high-improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC services in remote Australia. Results: We found nine primary implementation frameworks previously used in PHC contexts guiding interventions within and between macro (broader contextual) level; meso (health service) level; and micro (community and inter-personal) level systems. There was commonality between these frameworks and key quality concepts in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC. However, none of the frameworks covered all concepts with rare consideration of communities driving health improvement, two-way learning (integrating cultural knowledge into healthcare provision), and caring staff-engendering trusting relationships with community enacted through respect. Conclusion: Respect, as a secret essence, privileges the importance of culture, and is an essential element of CQI implementation frameworks for positive change in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PHC services. It is essential to work with communities to design workforce models that grow a caring stable workforce to ensure improvements in quality of care that are effective for their context., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Redman-MacLaren, Turner, Taylor, Laycock, Vine, Thompson, Larkins, Carlisle, Thompson, Bailie and Matthews.)

Introduction: In Australia, there have been improvements in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander maternal health, however inequities remain. There is increasing international evidence illustrating the effectiveness of Participatory Women's Groups (PWGs) in improving Maternal and Child Health (MCH) outcomes. Using a non-randomized, cluster stepped-wedge implementation of a complex intervention with mixed methods evaluation, this study aims to test the effectiveness of PWGs in improving MCH within Indigenous primary care settings in Australia and how they operate in various contexts. Methods: This study takes place in ten primary health care services across Australia and involves the recruitment of existing PWGs or the setting up of new PWGs. Services are paired based on geography for practical reasons and two services commence the PWG intervention at three monthly intervals, with the initial four services being those with existing women's groups. Implementation of the PWGs as an intervention involves training local facilitators of PWG groups, supported engagement with local MCH data through workshops, PWGs identifying and prioritizing issues and strengths and co-implementing solutions with health services. Outcomes are measured with yearly MCH audits, a cost-effectiveness study, and process evaluation of community participation and empowerment. Discussion: This study is the first to formally implement and quantitatively, yet with contextual awareness, measure the effect of applying a community participation intervention to improve the quality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander MCH in Australia. Findings from this work, including detailed theory-producing qualitative analysis, will produce new knowledge of how to facilitate improved quality of MCH care in Indigenous PHC settings and how to best engage community in driving health care improvements. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12618000945224. Web address: http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12618000945224.aspx., (Copyright © 2020 Carlisle, Felton-Busch, Cadet-James, Taylor, Bailie, Farmer, Passey, Matthews, Callander, Evans, Kelly, Preston, Redman-MacLaren, Fox, Esterman, Zwarenstein and Larkins.)

Introduction: Increasing the use of evidence in healthcare policy and practice requires greater understanding of how stakeholders use evidence to inform policy, refine systems and change practice. Drawing on implementation theory, we have used system-focused participatory research to engage diverse stakeholders in using aggregated continuous quality improvement (CQI) data from Australian Indigenous primary health care settings to identify priority evidence-practice gaps, barriers/enablers and strategies for improvement. This article reports stakeholders' use or intended use of evidence at various levels of the system, and factors mediating use. Material and Methods: Interviews were undertaken with a purposeful sample of 30 healthcare stakeholders in different roles, organization types and settings in one Australian jurisdiction and with national participants, as part of the project's developmental evaluation. Qualitative data were analyzed to identify themes and categories relating to use of evidence. Results: Context-specific aggregated CQI data that were relatable to the diverse professional roles and practices provided an effective starting point for sharing perspectives, generating practice-based evidence and mobilizing evidence-use. Interviewees perceived the co-produced findings as applicable at different levels and useful for planning, policy development, supporting best practice and reflection, capacity strengthening and developing new research. Factors mediating use were commitment to best practice; the credibility of the evidence and its perceived relevance to work roles, contexts and decision needs; report format and language; facilitation and communication; competing work pressures and the organizational environment for change. Conclusions: This study found that primary health care stakeholders used evidence on quality of care for a variety of purposes. This could be linked to the interactive research processes used to engage stakeholders in different roles and settings in interpreting data, sharing and generating knowledge. Findings indicate that system-based participatory research using CQI data and iterative, interactive and systematic CQI-based methods can be applied at scale to support concurrent action for healthcare improvement at different system levels. Factors known to influence implementation should be addressed within the research design to optimize evidence use. Further research is needed to explore the utility of interactive dissemination for engaging healthcare stakeholders in informing policy and system change.

Objectives: The aim of this research was to explore health professionals' perspectives on the provision of follow-up cancer care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients in Queensland. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Indigenous and non-Indigenous health professionals who had experience providing care for Indigenous cancer patients in the primary health care and hospital setting. Results: Participants were recruited from six Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services ( n = 17) and from a tertiary hospital ( n = 9) across urban, regional, and remote geographical settings. Culturally safe care, psychological support, determining patient needs, practical assistance, and advocating for Indigenous health were identified as enablers to support the needs of Indigenous patients when accessing cancer care, and Indigenous health professionals were identified as the key enabler. Conclusion: Indigenous health professionals significantly contribute to the provision of culturally competent follow-up cancer care by increasing the accessibility of follow-up cancer care services and by supporting the needs of Indigenous cancer patients. All health professionals need to work together and be sufficiently skilled in the delivery of culturally competent care to improve the Indigenous cancer journey and outcomes for Indigenous people. Effective organizational policies and practices are crucial to enable all health professionals to provide culturally competent and responsive cancer care to Indigenous Australians.

In Australia, Indigenous people experience poor access to health care and the highest rates of morbidity and mortality of any population group. Despite modest improvements in recent years, concerns remains that Indigenous people have been over-researched without corresponding health improvements. Embedding Indigenous leadership, participation, and priorities in health research is an essential strategy for meaningful change for Indigenous people. To centralize Indigenous perspectives in research processes, a transformative shift away from traditional approaches that have benefited researchers and non-Indigenous agendas is required. This shift must involve concomitant strengthening of the research capacity of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers and research translators-all must teach and all must learn. However, there is limited evidence about how to strengthen systems and stakeholder capacity to participate in and lead continuous quality improvement (CQI) research in Indigenous primary health care, to the benefit of Indigenous people. This paper describes the collaborative development of, and principles underpinning, a research capacity strengthening (RCS) model in a national Indigenous primary health care CQI research network. The development process identified the need to address power imbalances, cultural contexts, relationships, systems requirements and existing knowledge, skills, and experience of all parties. Taking a strengths-based perspective, we harnessed existing knowledge, skills and experiences; hence our emphasis on capacity "strengthening". New insights are provided into the complex processes of RCS within the context of CQI in Indigenous primary health care.

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes for improving clinical care and health outcomes have been implemented by primary health-care services, with resultant health-care impacts. But only 10-20% of gain in health outcomes is contributed by health-care services; a much larger share is determined by social and cultural factors. This perspective paper argues that health care and health outcomes can be enhanced through applying CQI as a systems approach to comprehensive primary health care. Referring to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian context as an example, the authors provide a systems framework that includes strategies and conditions to facilitate evidence-based and local decision making by primary health-care services. The framework describes the integration of CQI vertically to improve linkages with governments and community members and horizontally with other sectors to influence the social and cultural determinants of health. Further, government and primary health-care service investment is required to support and extend integration and evaluation of CQI efforts vertically and horizontally.

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians experience a greater burden of disease compared to non-Indigenous Australians. Around one-fifth of the health disparity is caused by cardiovascular disease (CVD). Despite the importance of absolute cardiovascular risk assessment (CVRA) as a screening and early intervention tool, few studies have reported its use within the Australian Indigenous primary health care (PHC) sector. This study utilizes data from a large-scale quality improvement program to examine variation in documented CVRA as a primary prevention strategy for individuals without prior CVD across four Australian jurisdictions. We also examine the proportion with elevated risk and follow-up actions recorded., Methods: We undertook cross-sectional analysis of 2,052 client records from 97 PHC centers to assess CVRA in Indigenous adults aged ≥20 years with no recorded chronic disease diagnosis (2012-2014). Multilevel regression was used to quantify the variation in CVRA attributable to health center and client level factors. The main outcome measure was the proportion of eligible adults who had CVRA recorded. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of clients with elevated risk that had follow-up actions recorded., Results: Approximately 23% ( n  = 478) of eligible clients had documented CVRA. Almost all assessments (99%) were conducted in the Northern Territory. Within this jurisdiction, there was wide variation between centers in the proportion of clients with documented CVRA (median 38%; range 0-86%). Regression analysis showed health center factors accounted for 48% of the variation. Centers with integrated clinical decision support systems were more likely to document CVRA (OR 21.1; 95% CI 5.4-82.4; p  < 0.001). Eleven percent ( n  = 53) of clients were found with moderate/high CVD risk, of whom almost one-third were under 35 years ( n  = 16). Documentation of follow-up varied with respect to the targeted risk factor. Fewer than 30% with abnormal blood lipid or glucose levels had follow-up management plans recorded., Conclusion: There was wide variation in CVRA between jurisdictions and between PHC centers. Learnings from successful interventions to educate and support centers in CVRA provision should be shared with stakeholders more widely. Where risk has been identified, further improvement in follow-up management is required to prevent CVD onset and reduce future burden in Australia's Indigenous population.

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have poorer cancer outcomes and experience 30% higher mortality rates compared to non-Indigenous Australians. Primary health care (PHC) services are increasingly being recognized as pivotal in improving Indigenous cancer patient outcomes. It is currently unknown whether patient information systems and practices in PHC settings accurately record Indigenous and cancer status. Being able to identify Indigenous cancer patients accessing services in PHC settings is the first step in improving outcomes., Methods: Aboriginal Medical Centres, mainstream (non-Indigenous specific), and government-operated centers in Queensland were contacted and data were collected by telephone during the period from 2014 to 2016. Participants were asked to (i) identify the number of patients diagnosed with cancer attending the service in the previous year; (ii) identify the Indigenous status of these patients and if this information was available; and (iii) advise how this information was obtained., Results: Ten primary health care centers (PHCCs) across Queensland participated in this study. Four centers were located in regional areas, three in remote areas and three in major cities. All participating centers reported ability to identify Indigenous cancer patients attending their service and utilizing electronic Patient Care Information Systems (PCIS) to manage their records; however, not all centers were able to identify Indigenous cancer patients in this way. Indigenous cancer patients were identified by PHCCs using PCIS ( n  = 8), searching paper records ( n  = 1), and combination of PCIS and staff recall ( n  = 1). Six different types of PCIS were being utilized by participating centers. There was no standardized way to identify Indigenous cancer patients across centers. Health service information systems, search functions and capacities of systems, and staff skill in extracting data using PCIS varied between centers., Conclusion: It is crucial to be able to easily identify Indigenous cancer patients accessing health services in the PHC setting to monitor progress, improve and evaluate care, and ultimately improve Indigenous cancer outcomes. It is also important for PHC staff to receive adequate training and support to utilize PCISs efficiently and effectively.

Background: Social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) is a critical determinant of health outcomes for Indigenous Australians. This study examined the extent to which primary healthcare services (PHSs) undertake SEWB screening and management of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients, and the variation in SEWB screening and management across Indigenous PHS., Methods: Cross-sectional analysis between 2012 and 2014 of 3,407 Indigenous client records from a non-representative sample of 100 PHSs in 4 Australian states/territory was undertaken to examine variation in the documentation of: (1) SEWB screening using identified measurement instruments, (2) concern regarding SEWB, (3) actions in response to concern, and (4) follow up actions. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with screening., Results: The largest variation in SEWB screening occurred at the state/territory level. The mean rate of screening across the sample was 26.6%, ranging from 13.7 to 37.1%. Variation was also related to PHS characteristics. A mean prevalence of identified SEWB concern was 13% across the sample, ranging from 9 to 45.1%. For the clients where SEWB concern was noted, 25.4% had no referral or PHS action recorded. Subsequent internal PHS follow up after 1 month occurred in 54.7% of cases; and six-monthly follow up of referrals to external services occurred in 50.9% of cases., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the lack of a clear model or set of guidelines on best practice for screening for SEWB in Indigenous health may contribute to the wide variation in SEWB service provision. The results tell a story of missed opportunities: 73.4% of clients were not screened and no further action was taken for 25.4% for whom an SEWB concern was identified. There was no follow up for just under half of those for whom action was taken. There is a need for the development of national best practice guidelines for SEWB screening and management, accompanied by dedicated SEWB funding, and training for health service providers as well as ongoing monitoring of adherence with the guidelines. Further research on barriers to screening and follow up actions is also warranted.

Background: Continuous Quality Improvement is a process for raising the quality of primary health care (PHC) across Indigenous PHC services. In addition to clinical auditing using plan, do, study, and act cycles, engaging staff in a process of reflecting on systems to support quality care is vital. The One21seventy Systems Assessment Tool (SAT) supports staff to assess systems performance in terms of five key components. This study examines quantitative and qualitative SAT data from five high-improving Indigenous PHC services in northern Australia to understand the systems used to support quality care., Methods: High-improving services selected for the study were determined by calculating quality of care indices for Indigenous health services participating in the Audit and Best Practice in Chronic Disease National Research Partnership. Services that reported continuing high improvement in quality of care delivered across two or more audit tools in three or more audits were selected for the study. Precollected SAT data (from annual team SAT meetings) are presented longitudinally using radar plots for quantitative scores for each component, and content analysis is used to describe strengths and weaknesses of performance in each systems' component., Results: High-improving services were able to demonstrate strong processes for assessing system performance and consistent improvement in systems to support quality care across components. Key strengths in the quality support systems included adequate and orientated workforce, appropriate health system supports, and engagement with other organizations and community, while the weaknesses included lack of service infrastructure, recruitment, retention, and support for staff and additional costs. Qualitative data revealed clear voices from health service staff expressing concerns with performance, and subsequent SAT data provided evidence of changes made to address concerns., Conclusion: Learning from the processes and strengths of high-improving services may be useful as we work with services striving to improve the quality of care provided in other areas.

Background: Routine eye and vision assessments are vital for the detection and subsequent management of vision loss, which is particularly important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who face higher rates of vision loss than other Australians. In order to guide improvements, this paper will describe patterns, variations, and gaps in these eye and vision assessments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people., Methods: Clinical audits from 124 primary healthcare centers (sample size 15,175) from five Australian states and territories were conducted during 2005-2012. Main outcome measure was adherence to current guidelines for delivery of eye and vision assessments to adults with diabetes, those without a diagnosed major chronic disease and children attending primary healthcare centers., Results: Overall delivery of recommended eye and vision assessments varied widely between health centers. Of the adults with diabetes, 46% had a visual acuity assessment recorded within the previous 12 months (health center range 0-88%) and 33% had a retinal examination recorded (health center range 0-73%). Of the adults with no diagnosed major chronic disease, 31% had a visual acuity assessment recorded within the previous 2 years (health center range 0-86%) and 13% had received an examination for trichiasis (health center range 0-40%). In children, 49% had a record of a vision assessment (health center range 0-97%) and 25% had a record of an examination for trachoma within the previous 12 months (health center range 0-100%)., Conclusion: There was considerable range and variation in the recorded delivery of scheduled eye and vision assessments across health centers. Sharing the successful strategies of the better-performing health centers to support focused improvements in key areas of need may increase overall rates of eye examinations, which is important for the timely detection, referral, and treatment of eye conditions affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, especially for those with diabetes.

Introduction: There is an enduring gap between recommended practice and care that is actually delivered; and there is wide variation between primary health care (PHC) centers in delivery of care. Where aspects of care are not being done well across a range of PHC centers, this is likely due to inadequacies in the broader system. This paper aims to describe stakeholders' perceptions of the barriers and enablers to addressing gaps in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander chronic illness care and child health, and to identify key drivers for improvement., Methods: This paper draws on data collected as part of a large-scale continuous quality improvement project in Australian Indigenous PHC settings. We undertook a qualitative assessment of stakeholder feedback on the main barriers and enablers to addressing gaps in care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and in chronic illness care. Themes on barriers and enablers were further analyzed to develop a "driver diagram," an improvement tool used to locate barriers and enablers within causal pathways (as primary and secondary drivers), enabling them to be targeted by tailored interventions., Results: We identified 5 primary drivers and 11 secondary drivers of high-quality care, and associated strategies that have potential for wide-scale implementation to address barriers and enablers for improving care. Perceived barriers to addressing gaps in care included both health system and staff attributes. Primary drivers were: staff capability to deliver high-quality care; availability and use of clinical information systems and decision support tools; embedding of quality improvement processes and data-driven decision-making; appropriate and effective recruitment and retention of staff; and community capacity, engagement and mobilization for health. Suggested strategies included mechanisms for increasing clinical supervision and support, staff retention, reorientation of service delivery, use of information systems and community health literacy., Conclusion: The findings identify areas of focus for development of barrier-driven, tailored interventions to improve health outcomes. They reinforce the importance of system-level action to improve health center performance and health outcomes, and of developing strategies to address system-wide challenges that can be adapted to local contexts.

Background: Integrating theory when developing complex quality improvement interventions can help to explain clinical and organizational behavior, inform strategy selection, and understand effects. This paper describes a theory-informed interactive dissemination strategy. Using aggregated quality improvement data, the strategy seeks to engage stakeholders in wide-scale data interpretation and knowledge sharing focused on achieving wide-scale improvement in primary health-care quality., Methods: An iterative process involving diverse stakeholders in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health-care delivery uses aggregated audit data collected across key areas of care. Phases of reporting and online feedback are used to identify: (1) priority areas for improvement; (2) health center, system, and staff attributes that may be important in addressing the identified priority evidence-practice gaps; and (3) strategies that could be introduced or strengthened to enable improvement. A developmental evaluation is being used to refine engagement processes and reports as the project progresses., Discussion: This innovative dissemination approach is being used to encourage wide-scale interpretation and use of service performance data by policy-makers, managers, and other stakeholders, and to document knowledge about how to address barriers to achieving change. Through the developmental evaluation, the project provides opportunities to learn about stakeholders' needs in relation to the way data and findings are described and distributed, and elements of the dissemination strategy and report design that impact on the useability and uptake of findings., Conclusion: The project can contribute to knowledge about how to facilitate interactive wide-scale dissemination and about using data to co-produce knowledge to improve health-care quality.