'All Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children should have access to the ASQ-TRAK': Shared vision of an implementation support model for the ASQ-TRAK developmental screener.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: The ASQ-TRAK, a strengths-based approach to developmental screening, has high acceptability and utility across varied Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander contexts. While substantive knowledge translation has seen many services utilise ASQ-TRAK, we now need to move beyond distribution and support evidence-based scale-up to ensure access. Through a co-design approach, we aimed to (1) understand community partners' perspectives of barriers and enablers to ASQ-TRAK implementation and (2) develop an ASQ-TRAK implementation support model to inform scale-up. METHODS: The co-design process had four phases: (i) partnership development with five community partners (two Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations); (ii) workshop planning and recruitment; (iii) co-design workshops; and (iv) analysis, draft model and feedback workshops. RESULTS: Seven co-design meetings and two feedback workshops with 41 stakeholders (17 were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander), identified seven key barriers and enablers, and a shared vision - all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families have access to the ASQ-TRAK. Implementation support model components agreed on were: (i) ASQ-TRAK training, (ii) ASQ-TRAK support, (iii) local implementation support, (iv) engagement and communications, (v) continuous quality improvement and (vi) coordination and partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: This implementation support model can inform ongoing processes necessary for sustainable ASQ-TRAK implementation nationally. This will transform the way services provide developmental care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, ensuring access to high quality, culturally safe developmental care. SO WHAT?: Well-implemented developmental screening leads to more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children receiving timely early childhood intervention services, improving developmental trajectories and optimising long-term health and wellbeing.

Educational strategies in the health professions to mitigate cognitive and implicit bias impact on decision making: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive and implicit biases negatively impact clinicians' decision-making capacity and can have devastating consequences for safe, effective, and equitable healthcare provision. Internationally, health care clinicians play a critical role in identifying and overcoming these biases. To be workforce ready, it is important that educators proactively prepare all pre-registration healthcare students for real world practice. However, it is unknown how and to what extent health professional educators incorporate bias training into curricula. To address this gap, this scoping review aims to explore what approaches to teaching cognitive and implicit bias, for entry to practice students, have been studied, and what are the evidence gaps that remain. METHODS: This scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Databases were searched in May 2022 and included CINAHL, Cochrane, JBI, Medline, ERIC, Embase, and PsycINFO. The Population, Concept and Context framework was used to guide keyword and index terms used for search criteria and data extraction by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative studies published in English exploring pedagogical approaches and/or educational techniques, strategies, teaching tools to reduce the influence of bias in health clinicians' decision making were sought to be included in this review. Results are presented numerically and thematically in a table accompanied by a narrative summary. RESULTS: Of the 732 articles identified, 13 met the aim of this study. Most publications originated from the United States (n=9). Educational practice in medicine accounted for most studies (n=8), followed by nursing and midwifery (n=2). A guiding philosophy or conceptual framework for content development was not indicated in most papers. Educational content was mainly provided via face-to-face (lecture/tutorial) delivery (n=10). Reflection was the most common strategy used for assessment of learning (n=6). Cognitive biases were mainly taught in a single session (n=5); implicit biases were taught via a mix of single (n=4) and multiple sessions (n=4). CONCLUSIONS: A range of pedagogical strategies were employed; most commonly, these were face-to-face, class-based activities such as lectures and tutorials. Assessments of student learning were primarily based on tests and personal reflection. There was limited use of real-world settings to educate students about or build skills in biases and their mitigation. There may be a valuable opportunity in exploring approaches to building these skills in the real-world settings that will be the workplaces of our future healthcare workers.