Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Subjects in a Graduate Diploma of Midwifery: A pilot study

Audit tools for culturally safe and responsive healthcare practices with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: a scoping review

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia face disparities in accessing culturally safe and appropriate health services. While current cultural safety and responsiveness frameworks set standards for improving healthcare practices, ensuring accountability and sustainability of changes, necessitates robust mechanisms for auditing and monitoring progress. This study examined existing cultural safety audit tools, and facilitators and barriers to implementation, in the context of providing culturally safe and responsive healthcare services with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This will assist organisations, interested in developing tools, to assess culturally responsive practice. A scoping review was undertaken using Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Informit and PsychInfo databases. Articles were included if they described an audit tool used for healthcare practices with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Selected tools were evaluated based on alignment with the six capabilities of the Indigenous Allied Health Australia (IAHA) Cultural Responsiveness in Action Framework. Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified. 15 papers were included. Audit tools varied in length, terminology, domains assessed and whether they had been validated or evaluated. Seven papers reported strong reliability and validity of the tools, and one reported tool evaluation. Implementation facilitators included: tool comprehensiveness and structure; effective communication; clear organisational responsibility for implementation; commitment to prioritising cultural competence; and established accountability mechanisms. Barriers included: the tool being time-consuming and inflexible; responsibility for implementation falling on a small team or single staff member; deprioritising tool use; and lack of accountability for implementation. Two of the six IAHA capabilities (respect for the centrality of cultures and inclusive engagement) were strongly reflected in the tools. The limited tool evaluation highlights the need for further research to determine implementation effectiveness and sustainability. Action-oriented tools, which comprehensively reflect all cultural responsiveness capabilities, are lacking and further research is needed to progress meaningful change within the healthcare system.

The Bunya Project: Protocol to develop culturally informed curriculum (Preprint)

BACKGROUND

Indigenous peoples live across all continents, representing approximately 90 nations and cultures and 476 million people. There have long been clear statements about the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determine services, policies, and resource allocations that affect our lives, particularly via the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. An area for urgent improvement is curricula that train the predominantly non-Indigenous health workforce about their responsibilities and that offer practical strategies to use when engaging with Indigenous peoples and issues.

OBJECTIVE

The Bunya Project is designed to advance Indigenous community-led teaching and evaluation of the embeddedness of strategies to achieve an Indigenous Graduate Attribute in Australia. The project centers the relationships with Aboriginal community services to lead education design relating to Indigenous peoples. The project aims to articulate community recommendations for university education in allied health in the usable format of digital stories to create culturally informed andragogy, curriculum, and assessment measures for use in teaching. It also aims to understand the impact of this work on student attitudes and knowledge about Indigenous peoples' allied health needs.

METHODS

Multilayered project governance was established, along with a 2-stage process using mixed methods participatory action research and critical reflection, using the reflective cycle by Gibbs. The first stage, preparing the soil, used community engagement, drew on lived experience, encouraged critical self-reflection, embodied reciprocity, and demanded working collectively. The second stage, planting the seed, requires more critical self-reflection, the development of community data through interviews and focus group discussions, the development of resources with an academic working group and community participants, the implementation of those resources with student feedback, the analysis of the feedback from students and community members, and reflection.

RESULTS

The protocol for the first stage, preparing the soil, is complete. The results of the first stage are the relationships built and the trust earned and gained, and it has resulted in the development of the planting the seed protocol. As of February 2023, we have recruited 24 participants. We will analyze data shortly and expect to publish the results in 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

The readiness of non-Indigenous staff to engage with Indigenous communities has not been ascertained by Universities Australia, nor can it be assured. Staff preparation and skills to support the curriculum, create a safe learning environment, and develop teaching and learning strategies to guide academics to recognize that how students learn is as important as the content students learn. This learning has broad implications and benefits for staff and students within their professional practice and for lifelong learning.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/39864.