Clozapine is the only drug licensed for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) but the real-world clinical and cost-effectiveness of community initiation of clozapine is unclear.

The aim was to assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of community initiation of clozapine.

This was a naturalistic study of community patients recommended for clozapine treatment.

Of 158 patients recommended for clozapine treatment, 88 (56%) patients agreed to clozapine initiation and, of these, 58 (66%) were successfully established on clozapine. The success rate for community initiation was 65.4%; which was not significantly different from that for in-patient initiation (58.82%, χ2(1,88) = 0.47, P = 0.49). Following clozapine initiation, there was a significant reduction in median out-patient visits over 1 year (from 24.00 (interquartile range (IQR) = 14.00–41.00) to 13.00 visits (IQR = 5.00–24.00), P < 0.001), and 2 years (from 47.50 visits (IQR = 24.75–71.00) to 22.00 (IQR = 11.00–42.00), P < 0.001), and a 74.71% decrease in psychiatric hospital bed days (z = −2.50, P = 0.01). Service-use costs decreased (1 year: –£963/patient (P < 0.001); 2 years: –£1598.10/patient (P < 0.001). Subanalyses for community-only initiation also showed significant cost reductions (1 year: –£827.40/patient (P < 0.001); 2 year: –£1668.50/patient (P < 0.001) relative to costs prior to starting clozapine. Relative to before initiation, symptom severity was improved in patients taking clozapine at discharge (median Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score: initial visit: 80 (IQR = 71.00–104.00); discharge visit 50.5 (IQR = 44.75–75.00), P < 0.001) and at 2 year follow-up (Health of Nation Outcome Scales total score median initial visit: 13.00 (IQR = 9.00–15.00); 2 year follow-up: 8.00 (IQR = 3.00–13.00), P = 0.023).

These findings indicate that community initiation of clozapine is feasible and is associated with significant reductions in costs, service use and symptom severity.

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.

Parents who receive a diagnosis of a severe, life-threatening CHD for their foetus or neonate face a complex and stressful decision between termination, palliative care, or surgery. Understanding how parents make this initial treatment decision is critical for developing interventions to improve counselling for these families.

We conducted focus groups in four academic medical centres across the United States of America with a purposive sample of parents who chose termination, palliative care, or surgery for their foetus or neonate diagnosed with severe CHD.

Ten focus groups were conducted with 56 parents (Mage = 34 years; 80% female; 89% White). Results were constructed around three domains: decision-making approaches; values and beliefs; and decision-making challenges. Parents discussed varying approaches to making the decision, ranging from relying on their “gut feeling” to desiring statistics and probabilities. Religious and spiritual beliefs often guided the decision to not terminate the pregnancy. Quality of life was an important consideration, including how each option would impact the child (e.g., pain or discomfort, cognitive and physical abilities) and their family (e.g., care for other children, marriage, and career). Parents reported inconsistent communication of options by clinicians and challenges related to time constraints for making a decision and difficulty in processing information when distressed.

This study offers important insights that can be used to design interventions to improve decision support and family-centred care in clinical practice.