College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
BMJ Glob Health. 2024 Jan 29;9(1):e014194. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014194.
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.
澳大利亚的原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民在获得文化安全和适当的卫生服务方面存在差距。虽然当前的文化安全和响应框架为改善医疗保健实践设定了标准,确保了变革的问责制和可持续性,但需要强有力的审计和监测进展的机制。本研究考察了在为原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民提供文化安全和响应的医疗保健服务的背景下,现有的文化安全审计工具以及实施的促进者和障碍。这将有助于有兴趣开发工具的组织评估文化响应实践。使用 Medline、Scopus、CINAHL、Informit 和 PsychInfo 数据库进行了范围审查。如果文章描述了用于与原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民进行医疗保健实践的审计工具,则将其纳入。根据与澳大利亚原住民联合健康组织(IAHA)的《行动中的文化响应能力框架》的六个能力的一致性,对选定的工具进行了评估。确定了实施的障碍和促进因素。纳入了 15 篇论文。审计工具在长度、术语、评估的领域以及是否经过验证或评估方面有所不同。七篇论文报告了工具的可靠性和有效性强,一篇论文报告了工具评估。实施的促进因素包括:工具的全面性和结构;有效沟通;明确组织实施责任;致力于优先考虑文化能力;以及建立问责机制。障碍包括:工具耗时且缺乏灵活性;实施责任落在一个小团队或单个工作人员身上;优先考虑工具使用;以及缺乏对实施的问责制。六个 IAHA 能力中的两个(尊重文化的核心地位和包容性参与)在工具中得到了强烈体现。有限的工具评估突显了需要进一步研究以确定实施的有效性和可持续性。缺乏以行动为导向、全面反映所有文化响应能力的工具,需要进一步研究以在医疗保健系统内取得有意义的变革。