Search

Background: The Australian geographically rural and remote disability workforce has historically demonstrated difficulties to keep up with the demand for quality services and supports for people with disability. In 2013, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was launched to provide individualised disability support packages to meet people's needs. To receive funding, people with disability are required to develop a NDIS plan. That plan is then funded by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), the government agency responsible for managing the NDIS. Although the NDIS has been operating for almost 10 years, there is limited research into the planning experiences of the workforce in regional, rural and remote regions of Australia. This review aims to ascertain the level of scholarly investigation into workers' experiences of NDIS planning. Methodology: Research publication databases were searched using a specific search string to identify publications that included reference to the workforce's experiences of the NDIS planning process in regional, rural and remote regions of Australia. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was adopted to appraise the quality of the research publications. Research publications that focused on those working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were also appraised using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool developed by the Centre for Excellence in Aboriginal Chronic Disease Knowledge Translation and Exchange. A thematic synthesis of the publications was undertaken to ascertain disability and health workforce experiences of the NDIS planning process. Results: Seven papers met the selection criteria. Two papers were policy reviews and reported the improvements of the NDIS planning process since its inception. These studies reported four reoccurring themes: (1) cultural/socioeconomic and geographical factors; (2) administrative burden and bureaucracy; (3) values, culture and geography; and (4) burden on allied health workers. Conclusion: The NDIS planning process has developed and progressed since its rollout in 2013. There are limited research papers available that describe the workforce's experience of the planning process in regional, rural and remote regions. More research in this area is needed to identify the experiences of the disability workforce in relation to the NDIS planning process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effectively addressing health disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians is long overdue. Health services engaging Aboriginal communities in designing and delivering healthcare is one way to tackle the issue. This paper presents findings from evaluating a unique strategy of community engagement between local Aboriginal people and health providers across five districts in Perth, Western Australia. Local Aboriginal community members formed District Aboriginal Health Action Groups (DAHAGs) to collaborate with health providers in designing culturally-responsive healthcare. The purpose of the strategy was to improve local health service delivery for Aboriginal Australians.Methods: The evaluation aimed to identify whether the Aboriginal community considered the community engagement strategy effective in identifying their health service needs, translating them to action by local health services and increasing their trust in these health services. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling. Qualitative data was collected from Aboriginal participants and health service providers using semi-structured interviews or yarning circles that were recorded, transcribed and independently analysed by two senior non-Aboriginal researchers. Responses were coded for key themes, further analysed for similarities and differences between districts and cross-checked by the senior lead Aboriginal researcher to avoid bias and establish reliability in interpreting the data. Three ethics committees approved conducting the evaluation.Results: Findings from 60 participants suggested the engagement process was effective: it was driven and owned by the Aboriginal community, captured a broad range of views and increased Aboriginal community participation in decisions about their healthcare. It built community capacity through regular community forums and established DAHAGs comprising local Aboriginal community members and health service representatives who met quarterly and were supported by the Aboriginal Health Team at the local Population Health Unit. Participants reported health services improved in community and hospital settings, leading to increased access and trust in local health services.Conclusion: The evaluation concluded that this process of actively engaging the Aboriginal community in decisions about their health care was a key element in improving local health services, increasing Aboriginal people's trust and access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This is the eighth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for disinvestment within a large Australian health service. One of the aims was to explore methods to deliver existing high quality synthesised evidence directly to decision-makers to drive decision-making proactively. An Evidence Dissemination Service (EDS) was proposed. While this was conceived as a method to identify disinvestment opportunities, it became clear that it could also be a way to review all practices for consistency with current evidence. This paper reports the development, implementation and evaluation of two models of an in-house EDS.Methods: Frameworks for development of complex interventions, implementation of evidence-based change, and evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes were adapted and/or applied. Mixed methods including a literature review, surveys, interviews, workshops, audits, document analysis and action research were used to capture barriers, enablers and local needs; identify effective strategies; develop and refine proposals; ascertain feedback and measure outcomes.Results: Methods to identify, capture, classify, store, repackage, disseminate and facilitate use of synthesised research evidence were investigated. In Model 1, emails containing links to multiple publications were sent to all self-selected participants who were asked to determine whether they were the relevant decision-maker for any of the topics presented, whether change was required, and to take the relevant action. This voluntary framework did not achieve the aim of ensuring practice was consistent with current evidence. In Model 2, the need for change was established prior to dissemination, then a summary of the evidence was sent to the decision-maker responsible for practice in the relevant area who was required to take appropriate action and report the outcome. This mandatory governance framework was successful. The factors influencing decisions, processes and outcomes were identified.Conclusion: An in-house EDS holds promise as a method of identifying disinvestment opportunities and/or reviewing local practice for consistency with current evidence. The resource-intensive nature of delivery of the EDS is a potential barrier. The findings from this study will inform further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]