Developing an integrated clinical decision support system for the early identification and management of kidney disease-building cross-sectoral partnerships.

BACKGROUND: The burden of chronic conditions is growing in Australia with people in remote areas experiencing high rates of disease, especially kidney disease. Health care in remote areas of the Northern Territory (NT) is complicated by a mobile population, high staff turnover, poor communication between health services and complex comorbid health conditions requiring multidisciplinary care. AIM: This paper aims to describe the collaborative process between research, government and non-government health services to develop an integrated clinical decision support system to improve patient care. METHODS: Building on established partnerships in the government and Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Service (ACCHS) sectors, we developed a novel digital clinical decision support system for people at risk of developing kidney disease (due to hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease) or with kidney disease. A cross-organisational and multidisciplinary Steering Committee has overseen the design, development and implementation stages. Further, the system's design and functionality were strongly informed by experts (Clinical Reference Group and Technical Working Group), health service providers, and end-user feedback through a formative evaluation. RESULTS: We established data sharing agreements with 11 ACCHS to link patient level data with 56 government primary health services and six hospitals. Electronic Health Record (EHR) data, based on agreed criteria, is automatically and securely transferred from 15 existing EHR platforms. Through clinician-determined algorithms, the system assists clinicians to diagnose, monitor and provide guideline-based care for individuals, as well as service-level risk stratification and alerts for clinically significant events. CONCLUSION: Disconnected health services and separate EHRs result in information gaps and a health and safety risk, particularly for patients who access multiple health services. However, barriers to clinical data sharing between health services still exist. In this first phase, we report how robust partnerships and effective governance processes can overcome these barriers to support clinical decision making and contribute to holistic care.

"The talking bit of medicine, that's the most important bit": doctors and Aboriginal interpreters collaborate to transform culturally competent hospital care.

BACKGROUND: In hospitals globally, patient centred communication is difficult to practice, and interpreters are underused. Low uptake of interpreters is commonly attributed to limited interpreter availability, time constraints and that interpreter-medicated communication in healthcare is an aberration. In Australia's Northern Territory at Royal Darwin Hospital, it is estimated around 50% of Aboriginal patients would benefit from an interpreter, yet approximately 17% get access. Recognising this contributes to a culturally unsafe system, Royal Darwin Hospital and the NT Aboriginal Interpreter Service embedded interpreters in a renal team during medical ward rounds for 4 weeks in 2019. This paper explores the attitudinal and behavioural changes that occurred amongst non-Indigenous doctors and Aboriginal language interpreters during the pilot. METHODS: This pilot was part of a larger Participatory Action Research study examining strategies to achieve culturally safe communication at Royal Darwin Hospital. Two Yolŋu and two Tiwi language interpreters were embedded in a team of renal doctors. Data sources included interviews with doctors, interpreters, and an interpreter trainer; reflective journals by doctors; and researcher field notes. Inductive thematic analysis, guided by critical theory, was conducted. RESULTS: Before the pilot, frustrated doctors unable to communicate effectively with Aboriginal language speaking patients acknowledged their personal limitations and criticised hospital systems that prioritized perceived efficiency over interpreter access. During the pilot, knowledge of Aboriginal cultures improved and doctors adapted their work routines including lengthening the duration of bed side consults. Furthermore, attitudes towards culturally safe communication in the hospital changed: doctors recognised the limitations of clinically focussed communication and began prioritising patient needs and interpreters who previously felt unwelcome within the hospital reported feeling valued as skilled professionals. Despite these benefits, resistance to interpreter use remained amongst some members of the multi-disciplinary team. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding Aboriginal interpreters in a hospital renal team which services predominantly Aboriginal peoples resulted in the delivery of culturally competent care. By working with interpreters, non-Indigenous doctors were prompted to reflect on their attitudes which deepened their critical consciousness resulting in behaviour change. Scale up of learnings from this pilot to broader implementation in the health service is the current focus of ongoing implementation research.

From "stuck" to satisfied: Aboriginal people's experience of culturally safe care with interpreters in a Northern Territory hospital.

BACKGROUND: Globally, interpreters are underused by health providers in hospitals, despite 40 years of evidence documenting benefits to both patients and providers. At Royal Darwin Hospital, in Australia's Northern Territory, 60-90% of patients are Aboriginal, and 60% speak an Aboriginal language, but only approximately 17% access an interpreter. Recognising this system failure, the NT Aboriginal Interpreter Service and Royal Darwin Hospital piloted a new model with interpreters embedded in a renal team during medical ward rounds for 4 weeks in 2019. METHODS: This research was embedded in a larger Participatory Action Research study examining cultural safety and communication at Royal Darwin Hospital. Six Aboriginal language speaking patients (five Yolŋu and one Tiwi), three non-Indigenous doctors and five Aboriginal interpreter staff were purposefully sampled. Data sources included participant interviews conducted in either the patient's language or English, researcher field notes from shadowing doctors, doctors' reflective journals, interpreter job logs and patient language lists. Inductive narrative analysis, guided by critical theory and Aboriginal knowledges, was conducted. RESULTS: The hospital experience of Yolŋu and Tiwi participants was transformed through consistent access to interpreters who enabled patients to express their clinical and non-clinical needs. Aboriginal language-speaking patients experienced a transformation to culturally safe care. After initially reporting feeling "stuck" and disempowered when forced to communicate in English, participants reported feeling satisfied with their care and empowered by consistent access to the trusted interpreters, who shared their culture and worldviews. Interpreters also enabled providers to listen to concerns and priorities expressed by patients, which resulted in holistic care to address social determinants of health. This improved patient trajectories and reduced self-discharge rates. CONCLUSIONS: A culturally unsafe system which restricted people's ability to receive equitable healthcare in their first language was overturned by embedding interpreters in a renal medical team. This research is the first to demonstrate the importance of consistent interpreter use for providing culturally safe care for Aboriginal patients in Australia.

Economic and quality of care evaluation of dialysis service models in remote Australia: protocol for a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Australia's Northern Territory (NT) has the country's highest incidence and prevalence of kidney disease. Indigenous people from remote areas suffer the heaviest disease burden. Concerns regarding cost and sustainability limit the provision of dialysis treatments in remote areas and most Indigenous people requiring dialysis relocate to urban areas. However, this dislocation of people from their family, community and support networks may prove more costly when the broader health, societal and economic consequences for the individual, family and whole of government are considered. METHODS: The Dialysis Models of Care Study is a large cross organisation mixed methods study. It includes a retrospective (2000-2014) longitudinal data linkage study of two NT cohorts: Renal Cohort 1- comprising approximately 2000 adults who received dialysis and Renal Cohort 2- comprising approximately 400 children of those adults. Linkage of administrative data sets from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, NT Departments of Health, Housing and Education by a specialist third party (SA/NT Datalink) will enable extraction of activity, financial and outcome data. Interviews with patients, clinicians and service providers, using a snowball technique, will canvass relevant issues and assist in determining the full costs and impacts of the five most used dialysis Models of Care. DISCUSSION: The study uses a mixed methods approach to investigate the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the full costs and outcomes associated with the choice of particular dialysis models of care for any given patient. The study includes a large data linkage component that for the first time links health, housing and education data to fully analyse and evaluate the impact on patients, their families and the broader community, resulting from the relocation of people for treatment. The study will generate a large amount of activity, financial and qualitative data that will investigate health costs less directly related to dialysis treatment, costs to government such as housing and/or education and the health, social and economic outcomes experienced by patients. This approach fills an evidence gap critical to health service planners.