Search

Timely access to culturally safe and responsive speech-language pathology (SLP) services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, led and implemented by communities, is essential. However, a multitude of barriers relating to accessibility, policy, the impacts of colonisation, awareness of services and expectations, and experiences often prevent this from being a reality. This article describes a "good news" story-the development of a SLP model of care (MoC) for urban Aboriginal children, co-designed by Aboriginal community members and Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal health professionals, where the unique strengths, values, and resilience of Aboriginal families, communities, and culture are incorporated into routine clinical practice. We will describe the clinical redesign process undertaken to develop the MoC, the key elements and activities of the MoC, and outline implications for clinical practice. Within this article, Aboriginal is inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We acknowledge the diversity in cultures and identities of all First Nations people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multi‐site research studies are essential if we are to conduct national research across all Australian jurisdictions. There is widespread agreement among clinicians and researchers that obtaining essential approvals to conduct multi‐site research studies in Australia can be complex, bureaucratic and time consuming. Although there is inherent value in the review process, resources and months of valuable research time are often expended long before the study has begun. Using our recent experience for a multi‐site, longitudinal paediatric cohort study of children and adolescents who were detained in offshore immigration detention on Nauru, we describe the process of navigating the ethics and governance approval systems. We identify tips for researchers and clinicians conducting multi‐site studies, including early consultation with ethics and governance committees, using their recommended templates, anticipating time delays, and commencing time consuming processes as early as permissible. Our recommendations at the systemic level include streamlined and integrated ethics and governance review processes for all Australian jurisdictions, with co‐ordinated requests for further information, a standardised approach across all Research Governance Offices, a rapid system for addressing amendments and individualised study support and consultations. Above all, a nationally agreed framework whereby ethics and governance committees across jurisdictions communicate with each other, use the same electronic platform and present a unified process whilst protecting the welfare, rights, dignity and safety of research participants is required. The complexity of the current ethics and governance processes may inadvertently and unintentionally be a barrier to conducting ethical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPurposeMaterial and methodsResultsConclusion\nIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONTo explore (i) the impact of unmet social needs on children with cerebral palsy and their families; (ii) enablers-, and (iii) barriers to addressing unmet social needs.Eligible participants attended or worked at one of the three Paediatric Rehabilitation Departments including: children with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy; parents/carers; and clinicians. One-on-one interviews were conducted with parents/carers and focus groups with clinicians. Interview and focus group transcripts were deductively thematically analysed according to the social model of disability.A total of 44 participants (8 parents and 36 clinicians) took part. No children consented to participate. Analysis of the qualitative data identified four main themes and 14 sub-themes. The main themes were: Unmet social needs are pervasive; An inequitable health system with no roadmap; Everyone suffers as a result of unmet social needs; and It takes a village to raise a child.Unmet social needs have profound impacts on families. The experiences of unmet social needs are intensified by the extra complexities of raising a child with disability. Societal barriers including inequitable systems and the fragmented services are barriers impeding on families receiving support and ultimately limiting their wellbeing.Many families experience a vicious cycle of disability, unmet social needs, and access – which service providers should thoughtfully consider when providing patient-centred care.For many families, a child’s disability impacts their unmet social needs, which influences their access to services and has consequences on their disability and wellbeing.Addressing unmet social needs is a priority for all people working with families of children with cerebral palsy including health, social care, and education providers.Integrated health-social care models such as social prescribing have the potential to support families to address their unmet social needs and warrant consideration within rehabilitation care.Many families experience a vicious cycle of disability, unmet social needs, and access – which service providers should thoughtfully consider when providing patient-centred care.For many families, a child’s disability impacts their unmet social needs, which influences their access to services and has consequences on their disability and wellbeing.Addressing unmet social needs is a priority for all people working with families of children with cerebral palsy including health, social care, and education providers.Integrated health-social care models such as social prescribing have the potential to support families to address their unmet social needs and warrant consideration within rehabilitation care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The social determinants of health contribute to poorer health outcomes for children with cerebral palsy (CP) and are barriers to families accessing health services. At an individual level, social determinants of health are experienced as unmet social needs, for example, unsafe housing conditions. There is emerging evidence that clinical pathways for the systematic identification and referral to services for unmet social needs can support families to address these needs. These clinical pathways have not been implemented for children with CP. The objectives are to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of two co-designed social needs clinical pathways for parents/caregivers of children with CP-social prescribing (ie, Community Linker plus resource pack) compared with resource pack only., Methods and Analysis: This pilot randomised controlled trial will run at the three tertiary paediatric rehabilitation services in New South Wales, Australia. A total of 120 participants will be recruited, with randomisation stratified by study site. A survey tool will be used to identify families experiencing unmet social needs. Parents/caregivers who report one or more unmet social need/s and consent will be eligible. The active control group will receive a resource pack containing information on community services to support unmet social needs. The social prescribing intervention group will receive one-on-one Community Linker support, in addition to the resource pack. The survey tool, intervention, logic model, and resource pack were co-designed with patient families and their healthcare workers. Feasibility of the research design and the clinical pathways will be evaluated using the number/proportion of parents/caregivers who complete the survey tool, consent, engage with the intervention, and complete research measures. Acceptability will be evaluated using questionnaires and qualitative interviews., Ethics and Dissemination: Human research ethics approval was granted by the Sydney Children's Hospitals Network Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/ETH01688). Participants and stakeholders will receive updates and findings via regular communication channels including meetings, presentations, and publications., Trial Registration Number: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: 12622001459718., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)