Search

Objective: Along with other Australian health professionals, occupational therapy students need to understand Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and health issues to develop their capacity to work effectively with this community and meet accreditation standards. The study aimed to explore the learning experiences of occupational therapy students during a module focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' health issues and approaches. Methods: A qualitative descriptive method was used. Individual interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed thematically following the module. Participants were asked about their prior experience with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, feelings about undertaking the module, difficulties and highlights of the module, and how the module contributed to their learning. Results: In all, 18 students participated in interviews. Interview themes were (1) student context of learning about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' heath and culture, (2) experiencing the module with others and (3) student learning gains following the module. Conclusion: Students developed in their self-awareness and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' issues of relevance to occupational therapy. Further research is needed to evaluate educational activities with occupational therapy and other health professional students across Australia, and ongoing culturally responsiveness training for health professionals (post-registration). What is known about the topic? Health professional students need to develop their knowledge and skills in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be culturally responsive and meet their health needs effectively. What does this paper add? This study is the first to describe the responses of occupational therapy students to a module on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing. Students were challenged about any biases that could affect their capacity to be culturally responsive. What are the implications for practitioners? Both practitioners and students need to be culturally responsive to provide culturally safe services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Accreditation to standards developed by the Royal Australian College of General Practice provides assurance to the community of the quality and safety of general practices in Australia. The objective of this study was to conduct an empirical evaluation of the 5th edition standards. Minimal empirically driven evaluation of the standards has been conducted since their publication in 2020. Methods: Data encompass consecutive Australian general practice accreditation assessments between December 2020 and July 2022 recorded from a single accrediting agency. Met and not met compliance (binary) scores for 124 indicators evaluated at the site visit were recorded. A subset of indicators derived from a selection of existing and consistently non-conformant indicators within each criterion was generated. Concordance between the indicator subset and the criterion was assessed to determine the predictive ability of the indicator subset in distinguishing practices who are conformant to the entire criterion. Results: A total of 757 general practices were included in the analysis. On average, 113.69 (s.d. = 8.16) of 124 indicators were evaluated as conformant at the site visit. In total, 52 (42%) indicators were required to obtain a true positive conformity rate above 95% for all criterions of the standards. For criterion 1 (General Practice 1) conformity to the entire criterion (nine indicators; >95% true positive rate) could be obtained by including 2/9 indicators (C1-1a and C1-2a). Conclusion: Our results identified that indicator non-conformity was driven by a small proportion of indicators and identifying a subset of these consistently non-conformant indicators predicted a true positive rate above 95% at the criterion level. What is known about the topic? Minimal empirical evaluation of the 5th edition standards for accreditation have occurred since their implementation. What does this paper add? Our findings suggest that more than half of the indicators currently do not adequately distinguish practices at the site assessment. What are the implications for practitioners? These findings may suggest that a review of individual indicators and the standards structure is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is a need to undertake more proactive and in-depth analyses of general practice accreditation processes. Two areas that have been highlighted as areas of potential inconsistency are the self-assessment and surveyor assessment of indicators. Methods: The data encompass 757 accreditation visits made between December 2020 and July 2022. A mixed-effect multilevel logistic regression model determined the association between attempt of the self-assessment and indicator conformity from the surveyor assessment. Furthermore, we present a contrast of the rate of indicator conformity between surveyors as an approximation of the inter-assessor consistency from the site visit. Results: Two hundred and seventy-seven (37%) practices did not attempt or accurately report conformity to any indicators at the self-assessment. Association between attempting the self-assessment and the rate of indicator non-conformity at the site visit failed to reach statistical significance (OR = 0.90 [95% CI = 1.14–0.72], P = 0.28). A small number of surveyors (N = 9/34) demonstrated statistically significant differences in the rate of indicator conformity compared to the mean of all surveyors. Conclusions: Attempt of the self-assessment did not predict indicator conformity at the site visit overall. Appropriate levels of consistency of indicator assessment between surveyors at the site visit were identified. What is known about the topic? There is a need to undertake more proactive and in-depth analyses of the general practice accreditation process and outcomes to improve the quality and safety within this healthcare sector. What does this paper add? Attempt of the self-assessment does not predict indicator conformity at the site visit overall, and appropriate levels of consistency of indicator assessment between surveyors at the site visit were identified. What are the implications for practitioners? We present empirical evidence as to the consistency of assessment with general practice accreditation to inform future standards and (re)accreditation assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Highlight article considers key contributions made by Professor Brian Yates to the Australian chemistry academic community in recognition of his seminal leadership that led to the establishment of the Chemistry Threshold Learning Outcomes (CTLOs) as national assessment standards. These CTLOs currently underpin the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI) process of the professional accreditation of chemistry majors in Australian tertiary institutions and, hence, provide benchmarks of learning in our discipline. Examples of contemporary assessment approaches in chemistry are presented to inform academics who are seeking to assess learning outcomes beyond threshold standards and to inspire future innovative assessment approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]