Incomplete recording of Indigenous identification status under-estimates the prevalence of Indigenous population attending Australian general practices: a cross sectional study

Abstract

Background Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) peoples face major health disadvantage across many conditions. Recording of patients’ Indigenous status in general practice records supports equitable delivery of effective clinical services. National policy and accreditation standards mandate recording of Indigenous status in patient records, however for a large proportion of general practice patient records it remains incomplete. We assessed the completeness of Indigenous status in general practice patient records, and compared the patient self-reported Indigenous status to general practice medical records. Methods A cross sectional analysis of Indigenous status recorded at 95 Australian general practices, participating in the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot (ACCEPt) in 2011. Demographic data were collected from medical records and patient surveys from 16 to 29 year old patients at general practices, and population composition from the 2011 Australian census. General practitioners (GPs) at the same practices were also surveyed. Completeness of Indigenous status in general practice patient records was measured with a 75% benchmark used in accreditation standards. Indigenous population composition from a patient self-reported survey was compared to Indigenous population composition in general practice records, and Australian census data. Results Indigenous status was complete in 56% (median 60%, IQR 7–81%) of general practice records for 109,970 patients aged 16–29 years, and Indigenous status was complete for 92.5% of the 3355 patients aged 16–29 years who completed the survey at the same clinics. The median proportion per clinic of patients identified as Indigenous was 0.9%, lower than the 1.8% from the patient surveys and the 1.7% in clinic postcodes (ABS). Correlations between the proportion of Indigenous people self-reporting in the patient survey (5.2%) compared to status recorded in all patient records (2.1%) showed a fair association (r = 0.6468; p < 0.01). After excluding unknown /missing data, correlations weakened. Conclusions Incomplete Indigenous status records may under-estimate the true proportion of Indigenous people attending clinics but have higher association with self-reported status than estimates which exclude missing/unknown data. The reasons for incomplete Indigenous status recording in general practice should be explored so efforts to improve recording can be targeted and strengthened. Trial registration ACTRN12610000297022 . Registered 13th April 2010.

Challenges in identifying indigenous peoples in population oral health surveys: a commentary

“…Finally, those organising appointments, conducting dental examinations and collecting chairside data are almost always non-indigenous, which makes many participants who identify as indigenous feel anxious, judged and devalued. For reasons relating to past experiences of discrimination and stigma, many opt not to identify as indigenous [ 35 ]. Numerator-denominator bias …”

Indigenous identity identification in administrative health care data globally: A scoping review

“… 22 , 30 Research has found that many health care practitioners in Australia do not systematically collect Indigenous identity information. 28 , 33 A study of Indigenous identity collection in primary care settings in Australia found that higher rates of identifier recording were often associated with older patient age, practices outside of a major city, and patients who were long-time clients of a practice. Patients of larger primary care practices and were younger in age were less likely to have an identifier recorded.…”

“…For example, despite Australia having an Indigenous identifier mandated by law, the identifier is still not systematically collected across health care sites and Indigenous people are frequently under-identified. 22 , 28 Under-identification can also be attributed to the general distrust of health care settings among Indigenous people. Cultural safety within health care settings could be enhanced through health care partnerships with Indigenous organizations and nations, requiring a representative workforce in all positions in health care settings.…”

“…25,26 The misclassification and under-identification was often tied to a lack of training among health care staff about the importance of routine data collection. [27][28][29] Furthermore, in many cases, there is no identifier at all or when there is one, it is inconsistent across datasets. 3,8 Emergency Departments (ED.…”

Kulay Kalingka, a national cohort study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ cancer experiences: a study protocol

“…The quality of data also limits what we know about diagnosis and treatment outcomes via cancer registry data. Problems with data quality include issues with misidentification and underidentification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in general administrative datasets and cancer-specific datasets,12 13 and a lack of national data on screening programmes 14. In more recent times cancer has become recognised as one of the leading contributors to the burden of disease for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 15…”