Although the health impacts of floods are well described, there is limited research on how flooding affects health systems, services and the health workforce—despite their central role in mitigating and responding to these impacts. This scoping review examines the nature and extent of existing research evidence on the impact of flooding events on Australia’s health system.

A scoping review following the Johanna Briggs Institute methodology.

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest Central and PsycINFO were searched through to 22 October 2024. Reference lists of included publications were screened for additional publications.

We included studies that reported any health system or health service disruption associated with flooding in Australia. Disruptions encompassed impacts on hospitals, primary care, health information systems, infrastructure, public health and health promotion activities, and the health workforce. We included peer-reviewed publications, including original research, commentaries, perspectives, editorials, letters to the editor, modelling studies and reviews. Grey literature was excluded.

Screening of full texts and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers. A health system disruption analytical framework was iteratively developed and was used to categorise the findings.

Our search identified 6687 publications, of which 28 were included in the final review. 13 publications were original research publications and 15 were commentaries or reviews, with the majority published in the past ten years. Of the publications included, most focused on disruptions to hospital services and transport systems, including a reduction in health workforce availability, primarily due to the latter. Less than one-third reported impacts on health services for socially vulnerable populations. Floods affect multiple levels of the health system, intersecting with impacts across three key domains: infrastructure and health information systems, access to healthcare and the health workforce.

Original research on how floods impact Australia’s health system, its services and workforce has been limited, particularly in relation to general practice, allied health and the differential impacts on socially vulnerable populations. Further research is needed to inform targeted disaster preparedness and response strategies and to understand the complex and intersecting impacts. The analytical framework developed in this review provides a way to conceptualise how floods disrupt different components of the health system and offers a foundation for future research and policy development to strengthen system resilience in the face of increasing flood risk.

The Validating Outcomes by Including Consumer Experience (VOICE) project is developing patient reported experience measure (PREM) tools to collect consumer feedback for Indigenous primary healthcare (IPHC) services’ accreditation and quality improvement processes. This study aimed to explore the views of health service staff about: (1) optimising the feasibility of collection, analysis and interpretation of findings; and (2) resourcing requirements for implementation of the PREM.

A participatory action research qualitative study design, guided by an Indigenous advisory group. Our team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers conducted semistructured focus groups and individual interviews with IPHC staff. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Multiple sense-making meetings were conducted with the Indigenous advisory group.

Eight partner IPHC services across four Australian states and territories.

All staff were eligible and invited to participate in the study via purposive and snowball sampling. Administrative staff (eg, receptionist, programme facilitator), clinicians/practitioners (eg, general practitioner, nurse, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers and practitioners) and service managers (eg, CEO, practice manager) from partner health services participated.

63 staff participated; 44 attended across 13 focus groups, with the remainder participating in individual interviews. The majority of participants were between 35 years and 55 years old (52%), female (66%) and working in frontline IPHC service delivery roles (56%). Equal numbers identified as Indigenous (50%) and non-Indigenous (50%). Many had worked in the Indigenous health and well-being sector for over 10 years (40%). ‘Culturally safe care’ and ‘accountability’ were identified as primary themes and key reasons for gathering consumer feedback. Subthemes identified were ‘Relationships’, ‘trust and respect’, ‘communication about consumer feedback’, ‘timing and frequency of requesting consumer feedback’, ‘health service systems’, ‘health service and staff capacity’, ‘staff skills’ and ‘structure and administration of the PREM’. All themes and subthemes need to be considered for the successful design and implementation of PREMs in IPHC settings.

Many of the issues identified are not currently considered in the process of collecting PREM data for accreditation yet, if addressed, would likely improve the quality and relevance of data collected. The findings from this study will inform the co-design and validation of Indigenous-specific PREM tools to collect consumer feedback. Critically, service and community input will ensure the PREM tools meet service needs for continuous quality improvement and accreditation and reflect the priorities and values of Indigenous peoples.