# A Comparison of an Australian First Nations Primary Healthcare Data Specification with Potentially Preventable Hospitalisations

## TL;DR

This paper compares a new healthcare data specification for Australian First Nations people with existing hospitalisation measures to assess its usefulness in primary care.

## Contribution

The paper introduces a prototype ICD-10 data specification tailored for First Nations primary healthcare and evaluates its hospitalisation rates.

## Key findings

- FNPHC hospitalisation rates were 1.5 to 2.5 times higher than PPH for principal diagnoses.
- FNPHC rates were 6 to 12 times higher than PPH for additional diagnoses.
- FNPHC showed strong correlation with PPH across jurisdictions.

## Abstract

Potentially Preventable Hospitalisations (PPH) is a widely used indicator of the effectiveness of non-hospital care. Specified using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding, PPH comprises a suite of health conditions that could have potentially been prevented with appropriate care. The most recent edition of the National Guide to a Preventative Health Assessment for First Nations People documents the health conditions of interest to providers of primary care, many of which are not represented in PPH. Given the National Guide has been developed specifically with First Nations in mind, the aim of this research is twofold. The first aim is to formally posit the question of whether a summative measure of hospitalisations aligned diagnostically to the National Guide has value either as an alternative or complement to PPH in the context of First Nations primary health information. The second aim is to develop and present a prototype ICD-10 data specification for such a measure, referred to as the First Nations primary healthcare (FNPHC) data specification, and examine the age-standardised hospitalisation rates for FNPHC and PPH for correlations and/or differences. Age-standardised hospitalisation rates from 2016–17 to 2019–20 using both classifications were examined to assess the usefulness and relevance of summative measures of hospitalisations for informing primary care. Rates of FNPHC for principal diagnoses were between 1.5 and 2.5 times higher than those of PPH and approximately between 6 and 12 times higher for additional diagnoses. There was a strong correlation with PPH when rates were compared across all observations: jurisdictions with higher rates of PPH tended to have higher rates of hospitalisations according to the custom specification. Findings support its application as a summary measure for First Nations primary care providers. Given the policy landscape in Australia that aims to close the gap, it is imperative that measures of primary health take advantage of the concepts and application of First Nations data sovereignty and governance. The validity and cultural appropriateness of the First Nations primary health data specification needs to be further researched.