Consultation Hub

The Intellectual Disability Capability Framework drafting group asked for feedback about the draft Intellectual Disability Health Capability Framework in an open consultation from 3 -27 October 2023. We asked for feedback about the overall draft framework and asked for specific feedback about the following areas of the draft framework document:

• learning outcomes
• implementation guidelines
• capacity assessment tools
• terms and language.

This was the second consultation for this project (the first open consultation asked for feedback about the core capabilities). 

Thirty-three submissions to the open consultation were received from a range of stakeholders including individuals, health services, peak bodies, education providers, First Nations organisations and groups representing and serving those with intellectual disabilities. A breakdown of responses is as follows:

• 9 responses from individuals/consumers
• 17 responses from organisations
• 7 responses from section/teams within an organisation

The results showed that overall, 91% of respondents agreed that the learning outcomes were appropriate, and 67% agreed that the learning outcomes were measurable. In relation to implementation guidelines, 58% of respondents agreed that the implementation guidance for accreditation authorities was appropriate, and 70% of respondents agreed that the implementation guidance for education providers was appropriate. 67% of respondents agreed that the assessment tools were useful, and 85% of respondents agreed that the language used in the framework was appropriate.

Free text comments identified areas for amendments or emphasis in the draft Framework. Main areas that were identified include:

• strengthening guidance around integrating intellectual disability into crowded curricula and accreditation standards.
• the need to provide students with the appropriate placements to prepare them to meet the needs of people with intellectual disability.
• disability awareness training for educators.
• the need to acknowledge self-regulating health professions within the framework.
• suggestions to simplify the capacity assessment tools.
• proposed changes to terminology and areas for emphasis in learning outcomes.

Feedback also identified areas that will be considered in the next phase of the project, including resource development, evaluation strategies and communities of practice. This feedback has been recorded and will be used in the next phase of the project.

All submissions were reviewed, and amendments have been made as appropriate. The following significant changes were made:

• strengthened guidance about how educational institutions and accreditation authorities can integrate intellectual disability into curricula and standards.  Flexible implementation options were provided and examples of ways that learning outcomes can be integrated into existing curricula were added.
• emphasised the need for appropriate placements to prepare students to meet the needs of people with intellectual disability and provided alternatives if no intellectual disability specific services.
• emphasised importance of disability awareness training for educators.
• acknowledged self-regulating health professions within the Framework.
• amended capacity assessment tools and made them modifiable, so they could be further revised to suit the needs of each organisation.
• updated terminology and glossary definitions as suggested. For example, diagnostic overshadowing was updated to a more contemporary definition.
• Added a new learning outcome to emphasise the need to limit diagnostic overshadowing. The new learning outcomes is: “Limit diagnostic overshadowing by evaluating when presentations are attributable to health and/or mental health concerns rather than intellectual disability”.

Next steps:

The next stage of the Intellectual Disability Health Curriculum Development Project, led by a team at UNSW Sydney, aims to curate and develop intellectual disability health resources to support the integration of the Framework into accreditation standards and health professional pre-registration education curricula. The project began in June 2023 and will run for two years, with resources released throughout this time. This phase involves significant consultation and co-design with people with intellectual disability, and consultation with key stakeholders including support networks of people with intellectual disability, accreditation authorities, and the higher education sector. The objectives of this next stage are to:

1. scope potential barriers and facilitators to implementation in accreditation standards and create a plan to support integration
2.  curate a list of existing foundational knowledge and teaching resources and provide guidance around their use
3.  identify and develop additional priority resources and tools to support education providers to implement the Framework. One such tool will support education providers to include people with intellectual disability and their support networks in the design and delivery of curriculum content.

We appreciate all the interest and expertise shared throughout the consultation phase and thank all stakeholders who prepared a submission.

We asked you for your experiences, views and perspectives of health practitioners working to full scope of practice in primary care.  

We received 686 online submissions from people representing a wide range of professions and roles in primary care.

The review analysts will now highlight the trends and key issues form the submissions. Together with the literature review, this will paint a comprehensive picture of the current state of scope of practice in primary care, to inform the next stages of the review.

We asked the Australian community and key stakeholders to provide their views on what they wanted to see in the new pandemic instrument and amended International Health Regulations (2005) to inform Australia's engagement in negotiations.

A total of 4,521 submissions were received from individuals and a range of stakeholder groups, including academic and research institutes; non-government and community organisations; peak bodies and unions; and private sector institutions. 

We have considered submissions received and identified key themes. A report containing a summary of the key themes and a Government response is available here.