Learning from alcohol (policy) reforms in the Northern Territory (LEARNT): protocol for a mixed-methods study examining the impacts of the banned drinker register.

INTRODUCTION: The Banned Drinker Register (BDR) was reintroduced in the Northern Territory (NT) in September 2017. The BDR is a supply reduction measure and involves placing people who consume alcohol at harmful levels on a register prohibiting the purchase, possession and consumption of alcohol. The current study aims to evaluate the impacts of the reintroduction of the BDR, in the context of other major alcohol policy initiatives introduced across the NT such as Police Auxiliary Liquor Inspectors and a minimum unit price for alcohol of US$1.30 per standard drink. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The Learning from Alcohol (policy) Reforms in the Northern Territory project will use a mixed-methods approach and contain four major components: epidemiological analysis of trends over time (outcomes include health, justice and social welfare data); individual-level data linkage including those on the BDR (outcomes include health and justice data); qualitative interviews with key stakeholders in the NT (n≥50); and qualitative interviews among people who are, or were previously, on the BDR, as well as the families and communities connected to those on the BDR (n=150). The impacts of the BDR on epidemiological data will be examined using time series analysis. Linked data will use generalised mixed models to analyse the relationship between outcomes and exposures, utilising appropriate distributions. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approvals have been obtained from NT Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), Central Australia HREC and Deakin University HREC. In addition to peer-reviewed publications, we will report our findings to key organisational, policy, government and community stakeholders via conferences, briefings and lay summaries.

Does improved interpreter uptake reduce self-discharge rates in hospitalised patients? A successful hospital intervention explained.

BACKGROUND: Aboriginal language interpreters are under-utilised in healthcare in northern Australia. Self-discharge from hospital is an adverse outcome occurring at high rates among Aboriginal people, with poor communication thought to be a contributor. We previously reported increased Aboriginal interpreter uptake and decreased rates of self-discharge during implementation of a 12-month hospital-based intervention. Interrupted time-series analysis showed sudden increase and up-trending improvement in interpreter use, and a corresponding decrease in self-discharge rates, during a 12-month intervention period (April 2018-March 2019) compared with a 24-month baseline period (April 2016 -March 2018). This paper aims to investigate reasons for these outcomes and explore a potential causal association between study activities and outcomes. METHODS: The study was implemented at the tertiary referral hospital in northern Australia. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) as a framework to describe intervention components according to what, how, where, when, how much, tailoring, modifications and reach. Components of the study intervention were: employment of an Aboriginal Interpreter Coordinator, 'Working with Interpreters' training for healthcare providers, and championing of interpreter use by doctors. We evaluated the relative importance of intervention components according to TIDieR descriptors in relation to outcomes. Activities independent of the study that may have affected study findings were reviewed. The relationship between proportion of hospital separations among Aboriginal people ending in self-discharge and numbers of Aboriginal interpreter bookings made during April 2016-March 2019 was tested using linear regression. 'Working with Interpreters' training sessions were undertaken at a regional hospital as well as the tertiary hospital. Training evaluation comprised an anonymous online survey before the training, immediately after and then at six to eight months. Survey data from the sites were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: Employment of the Aboriginal Interpreter Coordinator was deemed the most important component of the intervention, based on reach compared to the other components, and timing of the changes in outcomes in relation to the employment period of the coordinator. There was an inverse association between interpreter bookings and self-discharge rate among Aboriginal inpatients throughout the baseline and intervention period (p = 0.02). This association, the timing of changes and assessment of intercurrent activities at the hospital indicated that the study intervention was likely to be casually related to the measured outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Communication in healthcare can be improved through targeted strategies, with associated improvements in patient outcomes. Health services with high interpreter needs would benefit from employing an interpreter coordinator.

Aboriginal patient and interpreter perspectives on the delivery of culturally safe hospital-based care.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Improving equitable delivery of health care for Aboriginal people in northern Australia is a priority. This study sought to gauge patient experiences of hospitalisation and to identify strategies to improve equity in health care for Aboriginal patients. Aims were to validate an experience of care survey and document advice from Aboriginal interpreters. METHODS: Medical charts of Aboriginal patients were audited for documentation of language and interpreter use. Aboriginal inpatients were surveyed using an adapted Australian Hospital Patient Experience Question Set. Multiple-choice responses were compared with free-text comments to explore validity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Aboriginal interpreter staff. RESULTS: In 68 charts audited, primary language was documented for only 30/68 (44%) people. Of 73 patient experience survey respondents, 49/73 (67%) indicated satisfaction with overall care; 64/73 (88%) indicated hospital staff communicated well in multiple-choice responses. Respondents who gave positive multiple-choice ratings nevertheless reported in free text responses concerns relating to social-emotional support, loneliness, racism and food. Key themes from interviews included the benefits to patients from accessing interpreters, benefits of hospital-based support for interpreters and the need for further service redesign. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple-choice questions in the survey were of limited utility; respondents' free comments were more informative. Social and emotional wellbeing must be addressed in future experience-of-care evaluations. Aboriginal patients' language and cultural needs can be better met by improved systems approaches. Aboriginal interpreters are uniquely placed to advise on this. SO WHAT?: Improving health communication is critical to equitable and effective health care. Interventions must be driven by Aboriginal perspectives.