Indigenous health: Overview

Abstract
Māori are the indigenous people of New Zealand, and suffer disparate health outcomes compared to non-Māori. Waikato District Health Board provides level III intensive care unit services to New Zealand's Midland region. In 2016, our institution formalised a corporate strategy to eliminate health inequities for Māori. Our study aimed to describe Māori health outcomes in our intensive care unit and identify inequities. We performed a retrospective audit of prospectively entered data in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society database for all general intensive care unit admissions over 15 years of age to Waikato Hospital from 2014 to 2018 (n = 3009). Primary outcomes were in-intensive care unit and in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was one-year mortality. In our study, Māori were over-represented relative to the general population. Compared to non-Māori, Māori patients were younger (51 versus 61 years, P < 0.001), and were more likely to reside outside of the Waikato region (37.2% versus 28.0%, P < 0.001) and in areas of higher deprivation (P < 0.001). Māori had higher admission rates for trauma and sepsis (P < 0.001 overall) and required more renal replacement therapy (P < 0.001). There was no difference in crude and adjusted mortality in-intensive care unit (16.8% versus 16.5%, P = 0.853; adjusted odds ratio 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.40)) or in-hospital (23.7% versus 25.7%, P = 0.269; adjusted odds ratio 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.18)). One-year mortality was similar (26.1% versus 27.1%, P=0.6823). Our study found significant ethnic inequity in the intensive care unit for Māori, who require more renal replacement therapy and are over-represented in admissions, especially for trauma and sepsis. These findings suggest upstream factors increasing Māori risk for critical illness. There was no difference in mortality outcomes.

Improving cancer outcomes for Indigenous people by providing culturally safe, patient-centred care is a critical challenge for health services worldwide. This article explores how three Australian cancer services perform when compared to two national best practice guidelines: the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cancer Framework (Cancer Framework) and the National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) User Guide for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (User Guide). The services were identified through a nationwide project undertaken to identify cancer services providing treatment to Indigenous cancer patients. A small number of services which were identified as particularly focused on providing culturally safe cancer care participated in case studies. Interviews were conducted with 35 hospital staff (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) and 8 Indigenous people affected by cancer from the three services. The interviews were analysed and scored using a traffic light system according to the seven priorities of the Cancer Framework and the six actions of the NSQHS User Guide. While two services performed well against the User Guide, all three struggled with the upstream elements of the Cancer Framework, suggesting that the treatment-focused Optimal Care Pathway for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People with Cancer (Cancer Pathway) may be a more appropriate framework for tertiary services. This article highlights the importance of a whole-of-organisation approach when addressing and embedding the six actions of the User Guide. Health services which have successfully implemented the User Guide are in a stronger position to implement the Cancer Framework and Cancer Pathway.

Before COVID-19, Aboriginal people faced health disadvantages and inequitable access to health care. Any decrease in health care access for Aboriginal people through missed, delayed or avoided health care may lead to further adverse health outcomes and inequities