To identify: 1) best practice aged care principles and practices for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander older peoples, and 2) actions to integrate aged care services with Aboriginal community-controlled primary health care.

There is a growing number of older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and an unmet demand for accessible, culturally safe aged care services. The principles and features of aged care service delivery designed to meet the unique needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have not been extensively explored and must be understood to inform aged care policy and primary health care planning into the future.

The research was governed by leaders from across the Aboriginal community-controlled primary health care sector who identified exemplar services to explore best practice in culturally aligned aged care. In-depth case studies were undertaken with two metropolitan Aboriginal community-controlled services. We conducted semi-structured interviews and yarning circles with 46 staff members to explore key principles, ways of working, enablers and challenges for aged care service provision. A framework approach to thematic analysis was undertaken with emergent findings reviewed and refined by participating services and the governance panel to incorporate national perspectives.

A range of principles guided Aboriginal community-controlled aged care service delivery, such as supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity, connection with elders and communities and respect for self-determination. Strong governance, effective leadership and partnerships, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce and culturally safe non-Indigenous workforce were among the identified enablers of aged care. Nine implementation actions guided the integration of aged care with primary health care service delivery. Funding limitations, workforce shortages, change management processes and difficulties with navigating the aged care system were among the reported challenges. These findings contribute to an evidence base regarding accessible, integrated, culturally safe aged care services tailored to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

In the crowded field of leadership research, Indigenous leadership remains under-researched. This article explores the Leadership Model of an Aboriginal Community Controlled Primary Health Care Organisation providing services to the Yolngu people of remote northern Australia: the Miwatj Health Aboriginal Corporation (Miwatj).

The limited research which does exist on Indigenous leadership points to unique challenges for Indigenous leaders. These challenges relate to fostering self-determination in their communities, managing significant community expectations, and navigating a path between culturally divergent approaches to management and leadership.

Guided by Indigenous methodology and using a mixed methods approach, semi-structured interviews, self-reported health service data, organisational and publicly available documents, and literature were analysed using a framework method of thematic analysis to identify key themes of the Miwatj Leadership Model.

The Miwatj Leadership Model is underpinned by three distinctive elements: it offers Yolngu people employment opportunities; it supports staff who want to move into leadership positions and provides capacity building through certificates and diplomas; and it provides for the physical, emotional, and cultural wellbeing of all Yolngu staff. Furthermore, the model respects traditional Yolngu forms of authority and empowers the community to develop, manage and sustain their own health. The Miwatj Leadership Model has been successful in providing formal pathways to support Indigenous staff to take on leadership roles, and has improved the accessibility and acceptability of health care services as a result of Yolngu employment and improved cultural safety.

Translating the Miwatj Leadership Model into other health services will require considerable thought and commitment. The Miwatj Leadership Model can be adapted to meet the needs of other health care services in consideration of the unique context within which they operate. This study has demonstrated the importance of having a formal leadership model that promotes recruitment, retention, and career progression for Indigenous staff.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and livelihoods, and people already experiencing mental ill health may have been especially vulnerable.

Quantify mental health inequalities in disruptions to healthcare, economic activity and housing.

We examined data from 59 482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal studies with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within each study, we estimated the association between psychological distress assessed pre-pandemic and disruptions since the start of the pandemic to healthcare (medication access, procedures or appointments), economic activity (employment, income or working hours) and housing (change of address or household composition). Estimates were pooled across studies.

Across the analysed data-sets, 28% to 77% of participants experienced at least one disruption, with 2.3–33.2% experiencing disruptions in two or more domains. We found 1 s.d. higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with (a) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.20–1.40), with fully adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.24 (95% CI 1.09–1.41) for disruption to procedures to 1.33 (95% CI 1.20–1.49) for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access; (b) loss of employment (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.21) and income (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 –1.19), and reductions in working hours/furlough (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.09) and (c) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18–1.32) or in one domain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07–1.16), relative to no disruption. There were no associations with housing disruptions (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.03).

People experiencing psychological distress pre-pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare and economic disruptions, and clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Failing to address these disruptions risks further widening mental health inequalities.

All patients discharged from our Paediatric Liaison Team will have an electronic discharge summary sent to their GP within 24 hours by January 2020.

Writing a GP discharge summary is an essential part of patient care and is a patient safety issue if not completed on time. The NHS England Standard Contract states discharge summaries should be completed and sent to a GP within 24 hours of discharge. Baseline data showed our median time between discharge and a GP summary being sent off as 3 days and a baseline survey of staff in our team rated our discharge summary process as inefficient and time consuming. At baseline our discharge summary was typed on a word document which was then emailed to admin staff who would print and post to the GP. Our electronic patient record had an inbuilt discharge notification function that generates and sends summaries via email to the GP that other teams in the trust were already using.

We utilised the Model for Improvement Quality Improvement methodology. Initially we created a driver diagram breaking the process of discharge summary writing into its constituent components to generate change ideas. We then tested out these out in plan, do, study, act (PDSA) cycles whilst continually collecting data using a shared team spreadsheet to monitor for change.

We found that switching to electronically sent discharge notifications improved our time from discharge to a summary being sent to the GP from a median of 3 days to 1 day. We noticed that alongside a shared team spreadsheet monitoring when summaries were written we also reduced variation of time between discharge and a summary from a range of 0-27 days (with an outlier of 161) to 0-9 days.

On average the time from discharge to a summary being written met the standard and we reduced the variability of time delay by using an electronic notification. However only 56% of summaries were sent within the 24 hour limit. Key factors for continued variability identified during regular team meetings included overall caseload of patients, amount of staff on shift and technical issues with the form. Our plan for sustainability is to discuss monthly in the team meeting any discharges that took longer than 1 day and target further PDSA cycles to these issues.