Allison Thomson1, Simon Morgan2, Peter O'Mara3,4, Amanda Tapley2, Kim Henderson2, Mieke van Driel5, Christopher Oldmeadow6, Jean Ball6, John Scott2, Neil Spike7,8, Lawrie McArthur9, Parker Magin1,2. 1. Discipline of General Practice, University of Newcastle, New South Wales. 2. General Practice Training Valley to Coast, New South Wales. 3. School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, New South Wales. 4. Wollotuka Institute, University of Newcastle, New South Wales. 5. Discipline of General Practice, University of Queensland. 6. Clinical Research Design IT and Statistical Support Unit, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New South Wales. 7. Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Victoria. 8. Victorian Metropolitan Alliance. 9. Adelaide to Outback GP Training, South Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To document the frequency of recording of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status in general practice (GP) clinical records and to establish associations of this recording. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of recording of patients' Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status in GP clinical records from GP training practices in four Australian states. RESULTS: Of the 9,704 clinical records examined, the patients' Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status had been documented in 5,165 (53.2%). Higher rates of recording were associated with older patient age, practices outside a major city, patients who were not new to the practice and the patient being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. In encounters with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients, the patient's status had been documented in 82% of records. Those attending larger practices were less likely to have had their status recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status recording in GP clinical records. Almost 20% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients did not have their status recorded in the clinical record, with indications that recording may be unsystematic. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings reinforce the need for a systematic approach to identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status in general practice and will inform policy and practice in this important area.
OBJECTIVES: To document the frequency of recording of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status in general practice (GP) clinical records and to establish associations of this recording. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of recording of patients' Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status in GP clinical records from GP training practices in four Australian states. RESULTS: Of the 9,704 clinical records examined, the patients' Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status had been documented in 5,165 (53.2%). Higher rates of recording were associated with older patient age, practices outside a major city, patients who were not new to the practice and the patient being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. In encounters with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients, the patient's status had been documented in 82% of records. Those attending larger practices were less likely to have had their status recorded. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status recording in GP clinical records. Almost 20% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients did not have their status recorded in the clinical record, with indications that recording may be unsystematic. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings reinforce the need for a systematic approach to identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status in general practice and will inform policy and practice in this important area.
Authors: Belinda K Ford; Marlene Kong; James S Ward; Jane S Hocking; Christopher K Fairley; Basil Donovan; Rebecca Lorch; Simone Spark; Matthew Law; John Kaldor; Rebecca Guy Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 2.655