Early childhood development practices in a remote Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services setting.
Jane Bromley, Stephanie Sherrard, David Atkinson and 3 others
PMID 35802805WHAT IT FOUND
Developmental checks happened for 64% of children, but only 22% of referrals were completed.
Nurses and doctors lacked training and clear roles, leaving speech and hearing concerns largely unaddressed beyond initial screening.
Key findings
01Developmental enquiry was documented for 64% of children, but only 6% of consults included anticipatory guidance.
02Staff lacked training and relied on personal experience, while unclear roles between the Aboriginal health service and government clinics hindered monitoring.
03Of children referred for developmental concerns, 56% were seen by no agency, and only 22% were seen by all referred agencies.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPsWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The audit relied on existing documentation, so checks that happened but were not written down were missed. Only five staff were interviewed, and no parents or Aboriginal Health Workers were included in the qualitative data. The study looked at one health service in one town, so results may not apply to other remote areas. Referral completion was checked only within the health service's records; care received elsewhere may not have been captured.
Declared interests
One author was the CEO of the participating health service during the study period. The project was supported by the Kimberley Aboriginal Health Planning Forum.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that because a developmental check is documented, the child is receiving follow-up care. More than half of the referred children in this study were not seen by any specialist service, indicating a significant breakdown between screening and treatment.