Racial microaggressions and interculturality in remote Central Australian Aboriginal healthcare.

BACKGROUND: An epidemic of type 2 diabetes in remote Aboriginal people in Central Australia, contributes to high rates of morbidity and mortality. Remote non-Aboriginal Health Care Workers (HCW) and the Aboriginal people they serve inhabit a complex cultural interface. This study aimed to recognise racial microaggressions in the everyday discourse of HCWs. It proposes a model of interculturality for remote HCWs that avoids racialisation and essentialising of Aboriginal people's identities and cultures. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were undertaken with HCWs from two Primary Health Care services in very remote Central Australia. Fourteen interviews were analysed from seven Remote Area Nurse, five Remote Medical Practitioners and two Aboriginal Health Practitioners. Discourse analysis was employed to explore racial microaggressions and power relations. NVivo software assisted in the thematic organisation of microaggressions according to a predefined taxonomy. RESULTS: Seven microaggression themes were identified - racial categorization and sameness, assumptions about intelligence and competence, false colour blindness, criminality and dangerousness, reverse racism and hostility, treatment as second-class citizens and pathologizing culture. A model of interculturality for remote HCWs was based on concepts of the third space, deCentred hybrid identities and small culture formation on-the-go combined with a duty-conscious ethic, cultural safety and humility. CONCLUSIONS: Racial microaggressions are common in the discourse of remote HCWs. The model of interculturality proposed could improve intercultural communication and relationships between HCWs and Aboriginal people. This improved engagement is required to address the current diabetes epidemic in Central Australia.

Trusting relationships and learning together: A rapid review of Indigenous reference groups in Australian Indigenous health research.

OBJECTIVE: This rapid review aims to identify how Indigenous research governance is conceptualised, implemented and documented within Australian Indigenous health research studies. METHODS: We searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles in two databases and for web-based grey literature published from database inception to November 2021. Reference lists were searched to identify additional articles. Data relating to research governance were extracted and analysed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 1120 records were screened, and 27 articles were included. Most articles providing detailed description of Indigenous research governance activities were qualitative studies (n=15, 55.6%). Key themes included members are experts; respectful relationships; flexibility; and key logistic considerations (nuts 'n' bolts). CONCLUSIONS: Although Indigenous research governance is recognised as an essential part of ethical research, activities and contributions made by Indigenous reference group (IRG) members are underreported. This important work needs greater visibility in the published literature to share best practice in Indigenous research governance that foregrounds Indigenous expert knowledge, perspectives, and experiences. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: The study provides a synthesis of factors to consider when establishing and facilitating an IRG for research with Indigenous communities. This has implications for researchers who can adapt and apply the findings to their practice.

A learning collaborative of CMHCs and CHCs to support integration of behavioral health and general medical care.

OBJECTIVE: Integration of general medical and mental health services is a growing priority for safety-net providers. The authors describe a project that established a one-year learning collaborative focused on integration of services between community health centers (CHCs) and community mental health centers (CMHCs). Specific targets were treatment for general medical and psychiatric symptoms related to depression, bipolar disorder, alcohol use disorders, and metabolic syndrome. METHODS: This observational study used mixed methods. Quantitative measures included 15 patient-level health indicators, practice self-assessment of resources and support for chronic disease self-management, and participant satisfaction. RESULTS: Sixteen CHC-CMHC pairs were selected for the learning collaborative series. One pair dropped out because of personnel turnover. All teams increased capacity on one or more patient health indicators. CHCs scored higher than CMHCs on support for chronic disease self-management. Participation in the learning collaborative increased self-assessment scores for CHCs and CMHCs. Participant satisfaction was high. Observations by faculty indicate that quality improvement challenges included tracking patient-level outcomes, workforce issues, and cross-agency communication. CONCLUSIONS: Even though numerous systemic barriers were encountered, the findings support existing literature indicating that the learning collaborative is a viable quality improvement approach for enhancing integration of general medical and mental health services between CHCs and CMHCs. Real-world implementation of evidence-based guidelines presents challenges often absent in research. Technical resources and support, a stable workforce with adequate training, and adequate opportunities for collaborator communications are particular challenges for integrating behavioral and general medical services across CHCs and CMHCs.

Medical services for clients in community mental health centers: results from a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study provides national data on community mental health centers' (CMHCs') capacity to screen for and address their clients' general medical conditions. METHODS: A survey was distributed to members of the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, the oldest and largest association of CMHCs. RESULTS: Among the 181 CMHCs responding to the survey, more than two-thirds reported having protocols or procedures to screen for common medical problems (hypertension, obesity, dyslipidemia, and diabetes). However, only one-half could provide treatment or referral for those conditions, and less than one-third could provide general medical services on site. Barriers to providing general medical services included problems in reimbursement, workforce limitations, physical plant constraints (for example, lack of available space or equipment), and lack of options for referrals to local community medical providers. CONCLUSIONS: Although most CMHCs had the capacity to screen for common medical conditions, they reported a variety of barriers to providing medical care for those problems either on site or via referral.