Academic literature on the topic 'Melbourne (Vic ) Hospitals Emergency service'

BackgroundMost calls to ambulance result in emergency ambulance dispatch (direct dispatch) following primary telephone triage. Ambulance Victoria uses clinician-led secondary telephone triage for patients identified as low-acuity during primary triage to refer them to alternative care pathways; however, some are returned for ambulance dispatch (secondary dispatch). Older adult patients are frequent users of ambulance services; however, little is known about the appropriateness of subsequent secondary dispatches.ObjectivesTo examine the appropriateness of secondary dispatch through a comparison of the characteristics and ambulance outcomes of older patients dispatched an emergency ambulance via direct or secondary dispatch.DesignA retrospective cohort study of ambulance patient data between September 2009 and June 2012 was conducted.SettingThe secondary telephone triage service operated in metropolitan Melbourne, Victoria, Australia during the study period.ParticipantsThere were 90 086 patients included aged 65 years and over who had an emergency ambulance dispatch via direct or secondary dispatch with one of the five most common secondary dispatch paramedic diagnoses.Main outcome measuresDescriptive analyses compared characteristics, treatment and transportation rates between direct and secondary dispatch patients.ResultsThe dispatch groups were similar in demographics, vital signs and hospital transportation rates. However, secondary dispatch patients were half as likely to be treated by paramedics (OR 0.51; CI 0.48 to 0.55; p<0.001). Increasing age was associated with decreasing treatment (p<0.005) and increasing transportation rates (p<0.005).ConclusionSecondary triage could identify patients who would ultimately be transported to an emergency department. However, the lower paramedic treatment rates suggest many secondary dispatch patients may have been suitable for referral to alternative low-acuity transport or referral options.

BackgroundMelbourne, Australia, successfully halted exponential transmission of COVID-19 via two strict lockdowns during 2020. The impact of such restrictions on healthcare-seeking behaviour is not comprehensively understood, but is of global importance. We explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on acute, subacute and emergency department (ED) presentations/admissions within a tertiary, metropolitan health service in Melbourne, Australia, over two waves of community transmission (1 March to 20 September 2020).MethodsWe used 4 years of historical data and novel forecasting methods to predict counterfactual hospital activity for 2020, assuming absence of COVID-19. Observed activity was compared with forecasts overall, by age, triage category and for myocardial infarction and stroke. Data were analysed for all patients residing in the health service catchment area presenting between 4 January 2016 and 20 September 2020.ResultsED presentations (n=401 805), acute admissions (n=371 723) and subacute admissions (n=15 676) were analysed. Substantial departures from forecasted presentation levels were observed during both waves in the ED and acute settings, and during the second wave in subacute. Reductions were most marked among those aged >80 and <18 years. Presentations persisted at expected levels for urgent conditions, and ED triage categories 1 and 5, with clear reductions in categories 2–4.ConclusionsOur analyses suggest citizens were willing and able to present with life-threatening conditions during Melbourne’s lockdowns, and that switching to telemedicine did not cause widespread spill-over from primary care into ED. During a pandemic, lockdowns may not inhibit appropriate hospital attendance where rates of infectious disease are low.

Objectives. To describe a model that matches electronic patient care records within a given case to one or more patients within that case. Method. This retrospective study included data from all metropolitan Ambulance Victoria electronic patient care records (n = 445 576) for the time period 1 January 2009–31 May 2010. Data were captured via VACIS (Ambulance Victoria, Melbourne, Vic., Australia), an in-field electronic data capture system linked to an integrated data warehouse database. The case patient algorithm included ‘Jaro–Winkler’, ‘Soundex’ and ‘weight matching’ conditions. Results. The case patient matching algorithm has a sensitivity of 99.98%, a specificity of 99.91% and an overall accuracy of 99.98%. Conclusions. The case patient algorithm provides Ambulance Victoria with a sophisticated, efficient and highly accurate method of matching patient records within a given case. This method has applicability to other emergency services where unique identifiers are case based rather than patient based. What is known about the topic? Accurate pre-hospital data that can be linked to patient outcomes is widely accepted as critical to support pre-hospital patient care and system performance. What does this paper add? There is a paucity of literature describing electronic matching of patient care records at the patient level rather than the case level. Ambulance Victoria has developed a complex yet efficient and highly accurate method for electronically matching patient records, in the absence of a patient-specific unique identifier. Linkage of patient information from multiple patient care records to determine if the records are for the same individual defines the ‘case patient’. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper describes a model of record linkage where patients are matched within a given case at the patient level as opposed to the case level. This methodology is applicable to other emergency services where unique identifiers are case based.

ObjectiveTo investigate the appropriateness of cases presenting to the emergency department (ED) following ambulance-based secondary telephone triage.DesignA pragmatic retrospective cohort analysis of all the planned and unplanned ED presentations within 48 hours of a secondary telephone triage.SettingThe secondary telephone triage service, called the Referral Service, and the hospitals were located in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia and operated 24 hours a day, servicing 4.25 million people. The Referral Service provides an in-depth secondary triage of cases classified as low acuity when calling the Australian emergency telephone number.PopulationCases triaged by the Referral Service between September 2009 and June 2012 were linked to ED and hospital admission records (N=44,523). Planned ED presentations were cases referred to the ED following the secondary triage, unplanned ED presentations were cases that presented despite being referred to alternative care pathways.Main outcome measuresAppropriateness was measured using an ED suitability definition and hospital admission rates. These were compared with mean population data which consisted of all of the ED presentations for the state (termed the ‘average Victorian ED presentation’).ResultsPlanned ED presentations were more likely to be ED suitable than unplanned ED presentations (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.5 to 1.7; p<0.001) and the average Victorian ED presentation (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.4; p=0.046). They were also more likely to be admitted to the hospital than the unplanned ED presentation (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.6; p<0.001) and the average Victorian ED presentation (OR 2.3, 95% CI 2.24 to 2.33; p<0.001). Just under 15% of cases diverted away from the emergency care pathways presented in the ED (unplanned ED attendances), and 9.5% of all the alternative care pathway cases were classified as ED suitable and 6.5% were admitted to hospital.ConclusionsSecondary telephone triage was able to appropriately identify many ED suitable cases, and while most cases referred to alternative care pathways did not present in the ED. Further research is required to establish that these were not inappropriately triaged away from the emergency care pathways.

Objective In response to escalating alcohol and other drug (AOD)-related emergency department (ED) presentations, a tertiary Melbourne hospital embedded experienced AOD clinical nurse consultants in the ED on weekends to trial a model for screening, assessment and brief intervention (BI). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relative contributions of AOD to ED presentations and to pilot a BI model. Methods Using a customised AOD screening tool and a framework for proactive case finding, screened participants were offered a comprehensive AOD assessment and BI in the ED. Immediate effects of the intervention were evaluated via the engagement of eligible individuals and a self-administered ‘intention to change’ survey. Results Over the 32-month pilot, 1100 patients completed a comprehensive AOD assessment, and 95% of these patients received a BI. The most commonly misused substances were, in order, alcohol, tobacco, amphetamine-type stimulants, gamma-hydroxybutyrate and cannabis. Thirty-two per cent of patients were found to be at risk of dependence from alcohol and 25% were found to be at risk of dependence from other substances. Forty per cent of the people assessed reported no previous AOD support or intervention. On leaving the ED, 78% of participants reported an intention to contact community support services and 65% stated they would change the way they used AOD in the future. Conclusion This study of a pilot program quantifies the relative contribution of AOD to ED presentations and demonstrates that hospital EDs can implement a feasible, proactive BI model with high participation rates for people presenting with AOD-related health consequences. What is known about the topic? Clinician-led BI for high-risk consumption of alcohol has been demonstrated to be effective in primary care and ED settings. However, hospital EDs are increasingly receiving people with high-risk AOD-related harms. The relative contribution of other drugs in relation to ED presentations has not been widely documented. In addition, the optimal model and effects of AOD screening and BI programs in the Australian ED setting are unknown. What does this paper add? This paper describes a ‘real-life’ pilot project embedding AOD-specific staff in a metropolitan Melbourne ED at peak times to screen and provide BI to patients presenting with AOD-related risk and/or harms. The study quantifies the relative contribution of other drugs in addition to alcohol to ED presentations and reports on this model’s much higher levels of patient engagement in receiving BI than has been reported previously. What are the implications for practitioners? This study demonstrates the relative contribution of drugs, in addition to alcohol, to ED presentations at peak weekend times. Although BI has been well proven, the pilot project evaluated herein has demonstrated that by embedding AOD-specific staff in the ED, much higher rates of patient engagement, screening and BI can be achieved.

Background Access to rehabilitation to support cancer survivors to exercise is poor. Group exercise–based rehabilitation may be delivered remotely, but no trials have currently evaluated their efficacy. Objective We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a group exercise–based cancer rehabilitation program delivered via telehealth compared to usual care for improving the quality of life of cancer survivors. Methods A parallel, assessor-blinded, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with embedded cost and qualitative analysis will be completed. In total, 116 cancer survivors will be recruited from a metropolitan health network in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The experimental group will attend an 8-week, twice-weekly, 60-minute exercise group session supervised via videoconferencing supplemented by a web-based home exercise program and information portal. The comparison group will receive usual care including standardized exercise advice and written information. Assessments will be completed at weeks 0 (baseline), 9 (post intervention), and 26 (follow-up). The primary outcome will be health-related quality of life measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at week 9. Secondary measures include walking capacity (6-minute walk test), physical activity (activPAL accelerometer), self-efficacy (Health Action Process Approach Questionnaire), and adverse events. Health service data including hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions, and emergency department presentations will be recorded. Semistructured interviews will be completed within an interpretive description framework to explore the patient experience. The primary outcome will be analyzed using linear mixed effects models. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. Results The trial commenced in April 2022. As of June 2022, we enrolled 14 participants. Conclusions This trial will inform the future implementation of cancer rehabilitation by providing important data about efficacy, safety, cost, and patient experience. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001417875; https://tinyurl.com/yc5crwtr International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/38553

Objective The Royal Melbourne Hospital established a mobile X-ray service (MXS) in 2013. The goal of the MXS is to address the radiology needs of frail, elderly or demented residents of residential aged care facilities (RACFs) who would otherwise require transportation to attend for X-ray. The present study describes the activity of the MXS, and the impact of the MXS on emergency department (ED) attendances by residents of RACFs. Methods The study is a descriptive study and uses a before-and-after cohort approach. Activity for the first year of operation was collected and described. At the end of the first year of operation, the top 30 RACF users of the MXS were identified. The hospital Department of Radiology database was examined to find all plain X-rays performed on any patient presenting from the same 30 RACFs for the 1 year before commencement of the MXS (1 July 2012–30 June 2013) and for the 1 year period after the commencement of the MXS (1 July 2013–30 June 2014). Attendances were compared. Results The MXS delivered 1532 service attendances to 109 different RACFs. The mean age of patients receiving MXS services was 86 years (range 16–107 years). In all, 1124 services (73.4%) were delivered to patients in high-care RACFs. Most patients (n = 634; 41.4%) were bed or wheelchair bound, followed by those who required assistance to ambulate (n = 457; 29.8%). The most common X-ray examinations performed were chest, hip and pelvis, spine and abdomen. There were 919 service attendances to the top 30 RACFs using the MXS (60.0% of all attendances). There was an 11.5% reduction in ED presentations requiring plain X-ray in the year following the commencement of the MXS (95% confidence interval 0.62–3.98; P = 0.019). Conclusion The present study suggests a reduction in hospital ED attendances for high users of the MXS. This has benefits for hospitals, patients and nursing homes. It also allows the extension of other programs designed to treat patients in their RACFs. Special rebates for home-based radiology service provision should be considered. What is already known about this subject? Digital processing has changed the way radiology delivers services. The Australian community is in the middle of a shift towards an aging population, with a greater numbers of residents in RACFs. It has been suggested in previous studies that mobile X-ray reduces the rate of delirium in patients who require X-ray. What does this paper add? There is an unmet demand for MXS to residents of RACFs. MXS may reduce presentations by elderly residents of RACFs to hospital EDs for X-rays. MXS may assist general practitioners, and other innovative programs, such as Hospital in the Home and Inreach, to better manage care for patients in RACFs. What are the implications for practitioners? Providers of radiology services should examine the opportunities and benefits of establishing MXS. Funders of services should examine ways of rebating MXS to encourage further development. Hospitals (Hospital in the Home and Inreach services), RACFs and general practitioners should use mobile X-ray and integrate these services into their management of aged care delivered in RACFs.

Objective The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of the Advanced Musculoskeletal Physiotherapist (AMP) in managing patients brought in by ambulance to the emergency department (ED). Methods This study was a dual-centre observational study. Patients brought in by ambulance to two Melbourne hospitals over a 12-month period and seen by an AMP were compared with a matched group seen by other ED staff. Primary outcome measures were wait time and length of stay (LOS) in the ED. Results Data from 1441 patients within the Australasian Triage Scale (ATS) Categories 3–5 with musculoskeletal complaints were included in the analysis. Subgroup analysis of 825 patients aged ≤65 years demonstrated that for Category 4 (semi-urgent) patients, the median wait time to see the AMP was 9.5 min (interquartile range (IQR) 3.25–18.00 min) compared with 25 min (IQR 10.00–56.00 min) to see other ED staff (P ≤ 0.05). LOS analysis was undertaken on patients discharged home and demonstrated that there was a 1.20 greater probability (95% confidence interval 1.07–1.35) that ATS Category 4 patients managed by the AMP were discharged within the 4-hour public hospital target compared with patients managed by other ED staff: 87.04% (94/108) of patients managed by the AMPs met this standard compared with 72.35% (123/170) of patients managed by other ED staff (P = 0.002). Conclusions Patients aged ≤65 years with musculoskeletal complaints brought in by ambulance to the ED and triaged to ATS Category 4 are likely to wait less time to be seen and are discharged home more quickly when managed by an AMP. This study has added to the evidence that AMPs improve patient flow in the ED, freeing up time for other ED staff to see higher-acuity, more complex patients. What is known about the topic? There is a growing body of evidence establishing that AMPs improve the flow of patients presenting with musculoskeletal conditions to the ED through reduced wait times and LOS and, at the same time, providing good-quality care and enhanced patient satisfaction. What does this paper add? Within their primary contact capacity, AMPs also manage patients who are brought in by ambulance presenting with musculoskeletal conditions. To the authors’ knowledge, there is currently no available literature documenting the performance of AMPs in the management of this cohort of patients. What are the implications for practitioners? This study has added to the body of evidence that AMPs improve patient flow in the ED and illustrates that AMPs, by seeing patients brought in by ambulance, are able to have a positive impact on the pressures increasingly facing the Victorian Ambulance Service and emergency hospital care.

Background Relapse remains an unresolved issue in smoking cessation. Extended stop smoking medication use can help, but uptake is low and several behavioural relapse prevention interventions have been found to be ineffective. However, opportunistic ‘emergency’ use of fast-acting nicotine replacement treatment or electronic cigarettes may be more attractive and effective, and an online behavioural Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol has shown promise. The present trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two interventions. Design A randomised controlled trial. Setting English stop smoking services and Australian quitlines, Australian social media and St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, VIC. Participants Ex-smokers abstinent for at least 4 weeks, with some participants in Australia also recruited from 1 week post quit date. The planned sample size was 1400, but the trial was curtailed when 235 participants were recruited. Interventions Participants were randomised in permuted blocks of random sizes to (1) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes to use if at risk of relapse, plus static text messages (n = 60), (2) the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol and interactive text messages (n = 57), (3) oral nicotine replacement treatment/electronic cigarettes plus the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol with interactive text messages (n = 58) or (4) usual care plus static text messages (n = 59). Outcome measures Owing to delays in study set-up and recruitment issues, the study was curtailed and the primary outcome was revised. The original objective was to determine whether or not the two interventions, together or separately, reduced relapse rates at 12 months compared with usual care. The revised primary objective was to determine whether or not number of interventions received (i.e. none, one or two) affects relapse rate at 6 months (not biochemically validated because of study curtailment). Relapse was defined as smoking on at least 7 consecutive days, or any smoking in the last month at final follow-up for both the original and curtailed outcomes. Participants with missing outcome data were included as smokers. Secondary outcomes included sustained abstinence (i.e. no more than five cigarettes smoked over the 6 months), nicotine product preferences (e.g. electronic cigarettes or nicotine replacement treatment) and Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol coping strategies used. Two substudies assessed reactions to interventions quantitatively and qualitatively. The trial statistician remained blinded until analysis was complete. Results The 6-month relapse rates were 60.0%, 43.5% and 49.2% in the usual-care arm, one-intervention arm and the two-intervention arm, respectively (p = 0.11). Sustained abstinence rates were 41.7%, 54.8% and 50.9%, respectively (p = 0.17). Electronic cigarettes were chosen more frequently than nicotine replacement treatment in Australia (71.1% vs. 29.0%; p = 0.001), but not in England (54.0% vs. 46.0%; p = 0.57). Of participants allocated to nicotine products, 23.1% were using them daily at 6 months. The online intervention received positive ratings from 63% of participants at 6 months, but the majority of participants (72%) completed one assessment only. Coping strategies taught in the Structured Planning and Prompting Protocol were used with similar frequency in all study arms, suggesting that these are strategies people had already acquired. Only one participant used the interactive texting, and interactive and static messages received virtually identical ratings. Limitations The inability to recruit sufficient participants resulted in a lack of power to detect clinically relevant differences. Self-reported abstinence was not biochemically validated in the curtailed trial, and the ecological momentary assessment substudy was perceived by some as an intervention. Conclusions Recruiting recent ex-smokers into an interventional study proved problematic. Both interventions were well received and safe. Combining the interventions did not surpass the effects of each intervention alone. There was a trend in favour of single interventions reducing relapse, but it did not reach significance and there are reasons to interpret the trend with caution. Future work Further studies of both interventions are warranted, using simpler study designs. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11111428. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, ACT, Australia (NHMRC APP1095880). Public Health England provided the funds to purchase the nicotine products in England.

Introduction Most developed countries, including Australia, have a strong focus on national, state and local strategies for emergency management and response in the face of disasters and crises. This framework can include coping with catastrophic dislocation, service disruption, injury or loss of life in the face of natural disasters such as major fires, floods, earthquakes or other large-impact natural events, as well as dealing with similar catastrophes resulting from human actions such as bombs, biological agents, cyber-attacks targeting essential services such as communications networks, or other crises affecting large populations. Emergency management frameworks for crisis and disaster response are distinguished by their focus on the domestic context for such events; that is, how to manage and assist the ways in which civilian populations, who are for the most part inexperienced and untrained in dealing with crises and disasters, are able to respond and behave in such situations so as to minimise the impacts of a catastrophic event. Even in countries like Australia that demonstrate a strong public commitment to cultural pluralism and social cohesion, ethno-cultural diversity can be seen as a risk or threat to national security and values at times of political, natural, economic and/or social tensions and crises. Australian government policymakers have recently focused, with increasing intensity, on “community resilience” as a key element in countering extremism and enhancing emergency preparedness and response. In some sense, this is the result of a tacit acknowledgement by government agencies that there are limits to what they can do for domestic communities should such a catastrophic event occur, and accordingly, the focus in recent times has shifted to how governments can best help people to help themselves in such situations, a key element of the contemporary “resilience” approach. Yet despite the robustly multicultural nature of Australian society, explicit engagement with Australia’s cultural diversity flickers only fleetingly on this agenda, which continues to pursue approaches to community resilience in the absence of understandings about how these terms and formations may themselves need to be diversified to maximise engagement by all citizens in a multicultural polity. There have been some recent efforts in Australia to move in this direction, for example the Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI)’s recent suite of projects with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities (2006-2010) and the current Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee-supported project on “Harnessing Resilience Capital in Culturally Diverse Communities to Counter Violent Extremism” (Grossman and Tahiri), which I discuss in a longer forthcoming version of this essay (Grossman). Yet the understanding of ethno-cultural identity and difference that underlies much policy thinking on resilience remains problematic for the way in which it invests in a view of the cultural dimensions of community resilience as relic rather than resource – valorising the preservation of and respect for cultural norms and traditions, but silent on what different ethno-cultural communities might contribute toward expanded definitions of both “community” and “resilience” by virtue of the transformative potential and existing cultural capital they bring with them into new national and also translocal settings. For example, a primary conclusion of the joint program between AEMI and the Australian Multicultural Commission is that CALD communities are largely “vulnerable” in the context of disasters and emergency management and need to be better integrated into majority-culture models of theorising and embedding community resilience. This focus on stronger national integration and the “vulnerability” of culturally diverse ethno-cultural communities in the Australian context echoes the work of scholars beyond Australia such as McGhee, Mouritsen (Reflections, Citizenship) and Joppke. They argue that the “civic turn” in debates around resurgent contemporary nationalism and multicultural immigration policies privileges civic integration over genuine two-way multiculturalism. This approach sidesteps the transculturational (Ortiz; Welsch; Mignolo; Bennesaieh; Robins; Stein) aspects of contemporary social identities and exchange by paying lip-service to cultural diversity while affirming a neo-liberal construct of civic values and principles as a universalising goal of Western democratic states within a global market economy. It also suggests a superficial tribute to cultural diversity that does not embed diversity comprehensively at the levels of either conceptualising or resourcing different elements of Australian transcultural communities within the generalised framework of “community resilience.” And by emphasising cultural difference as vulnerability rather than as resource or asset, it fails to acknowledge the varieties of resilience capital that many culturally diverse individuals and communities may bring with them when they resettle in new environments, by ignoring the question of what “resilience” actually means to those from culturally diverse communities. In so doing, it also avoids the critical task of incorporating intercultural definitional diversity around the concepts of both “community” and “resilience” used to promote social cohesion and the capacity to recover from disasters and crises. How we might do differently in thinking about the broader challenges for multiculturalism itself as a resilient transnational concept and practice? The Concept of Resilience The meanings of resilience vary by disciplinary perspective. While there is no universally accepted definition of the concept, it is widely acknowledged that resilience refers to the capacity of an individual to do well in spite of exposure to acute trauma or sustained adversity (Liebenberg 219). Originating in the Latin word resilio, meaning ‘to jump back’, there is general consensus that resilience pertains to an individual’s, community’s or system’s ability to adapt to and ‘bounce back’ from a disruptive event (Mohaupt 63, Longstaff et al. 3). Over the past decade there has been a dramatic rise in interest in the clinical, community and family sciences concerning resilience to a broad range of adversities (Weine 62). While debate continues over which discipline can be credited with first employing resilience as a concept, Mohaupt argues that most of the literature on resilience cites social psychology and psychiatry as the origin for the concept beginning in the mid-20th century. The pioneer researchers of what became known as resilience research studied the impact on children living in dysfunctional families. For example, the findings of work by Garmezy, Werner and Smith and Rutter showed that about one third of children in these studies were coping very well despite considerable adversities and traumas. In asking what it was that prevented the children in their research from being negatively influenced by their home environments, such research provided the basis for future research on resilience. Such work was also ground-breaking for identifying the so-called ‘protective factors’ or resources that individuals can operationalise when dealing with adversity. In essence, protective factors are those conditions in the individual that protect them from the risk of dysfunction and enable recovery from trauma. They mitigate the effects of stressors or risk factors, that is, those conditions that predispose one to harm (Hajek 15). Protective factors include the inborn traits or qualities within an individual, those defining an individual’s environment, and also the interaction between the two. Together, these factors give people the strength, skills and motivation to cope in difficult situations and re-establish (a version of) ‘normal’ life (Gunnestad). Identifying protective factors is important in terms of understanding the particular resources a given sociocultural group has at its disposal, but it is also vital to consider the interconnections between various protective mechanisms, how they might influence each other, and to what degree. An individual, for instance, might display resilience or adaptive functioning in a particular domain (e.g. emotional functioning) but experience significant deficits in another (e.g. academic achievement) (Hunter 2). It is also essential to scrutinise how the interaction between protective factors and risk factors creates patterns of resilience. Finally, a comprehensive understanding of the interrelated nature of protective mechanisms and risk factors is imperative for designing effective interventions and tailored preventive strategies (Weine 65). In short, contemporary thinking about resilience suggests it is neither entirely personal nor strictly social, but an interactive and iterative combination of the two. It is a quality of the environment as much as the individual. For Ungar, resilience is the complex entanglements between “individuals and their social ecologies [that] will determine the degree of positive outcomes experienced” (3). Thinking about resilience as context-dependent is important because research that is too trait-based or actor-centred risks ignoring any structural or institutional forces. A more ecological interpretation of resilience, one that takes into a person’s context and environment into account, is vital in order to avoid blaming the victim for any hardships they face, or relieving state and institutional structures from their responsibilities in addressing social adversity, which can “emphasise self-help in line with a neo-conservative agenda instead of stimulating state responsibility” (Mohaupt 67). Nevertheless, Ungar posits that a coherent definition of resilience has yet to be developed that adequately ‘captures the dual focus of the individual and the individual’s social ecology and how the two must both be accounted for when determining the criteria for judging outcomes and discerning processes associated with resilience’ (7). Recent resilience research has consequently prompted a shift away from vulnerability towards protective processes — a shift that highlights the sustained capabilities of individuals and communities under threat or at risk. Locating ‘Culture’ in the Literature on Resilience However, an understanding of the role of culture has remained elusive or marginalised within this trend; there has been comparatively little sustained investigation into the applicability of resilience constructs to non-western cultures, or how the resources available for survival might differ from those accessible to western populations (Ungar 4). As such, a growing body of researchers is calling for more rigorous inquiry into culturally determined outcomes that might be associated with resilience in non-western or multicultural cultures and contexts, for example where Indigenous and minority immigrant communities live side by side with their ‘mainstream’ neighbours in western settings (Ungar 2). ‘Cultural resilience’ considers the role that cultural background plays in determining the ability of individuals and communities to be resilient in the face of adversity. For Clauss-Ehlers, the term describes the degree to which the strengths of one’s culture promote the development of coping (198). Culturally-focused resilience suggests that people can manage and overcome stress and trauma based not on individual characteristics alone, but also from the support of broader sociocultural factors (culture, cultural values, language, customs, norms) (Clauss-Ehlers 324). The innate cultural strengths of a culture may or may not differ from the strengths of other cultures; the emphasis here is not so much comparatively inter-cultural as intensively intra-cultural (VanBreda 215). A culturally focused resilience model thus involves “a dynamic, interactive process in which the individual negotiates stress through a combination of character traits, cultural background, cultural values, and facilitating factors in the sociocultural environment” (Clauss-Ehlers 199). In understanding ways of ‘coping and hoping, surviving and thriving’, it is thus crucial to consider how culturally and linguistically diverse minorities navigate the cultural understandings and assumptions of both their countries of origin and those of their current domicile (Ungar 12). Gunnestad claims that people who master the rules and norms of their new culture without abandoning their own language, values and social support are more resilient than those who tenaciously maintain their own culture at the expense of adjusting to their new environment. They are also more resilient than those who forego their own culture and assimilate with the host society (14). Accordingly, if the combination of both valuing one’s culture as well as learning about the culture of the new system produces greater resilience and adaptive capacities, serious problems can arise when a majority tries to acculturate a minority to the mainstream by taking away or not recognising important parts of the minority culture. In terms of resilience, if cultural factors are denied or diminished in accounting for and strengthening resilience – in other words, if people are stripped of what they possess by way of resilience built through cultural knowledge, disposition and networks – they do in fact become vulnerable, because ‘they do not automatically gain those cultural strengths that the majority has acquired over generations’ (Gunnestad 14). Mobilising ‘Culture’ in Australian Approaches to Community Resilience The realpolitik of how concepts of resilience and culture are mobilised is highly relevant here. As noted above, when ethnocultural difference is positioned as a risk or a threat to national identity, security and values, this is precisely the moment when vigorously, even aggressively, nationalised definitions of ‘community’ and ‘identity’ that minoritise or disavow cultural diversities come to the fore in public discourse. The Australian evocation of nationalism and national identity, particularly in the way it has framed policy discussion on managing national responses to disasters and threats, has arguably been more muted than some of the European hysteria witnessed recently around cultural diversity and national life. Yet we still struggle with the idea that newcomers to Australia might fall on the surplus rather than the deficit side of the ledger when it comes to identifying and harnessing resilience capital. A brief example of this trend is explored here. From 2006 to 2010, the Australian Emergency Management Institute embarked on an ambitious government-funded four-year program devoted to strengthening community resilience in relation to disasters with specific reference to engaging CALD communities across Australia. The program, Inclusive Emergency Management with CALD Communities, was part of a wider Australian National Action Plan to Build Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security in the wake of the London terrorist bombings in July 2005. Involving CALD community organisations as well as various emergency and disaster management agencies, the program ran various workshops and agency-community partnership pilots, developed national school education resources, and commissioned an evaluation of the program’s effectiveness (Farrow et al.). While my critique here is certainly not aimed at emergency management or disaster response agencies and personnel themselves – dedicated professionals who often achieve remarkable results in emergency and disaster response under extraordinarily difficult circumstances – it is nevertheless important to highlight how the assumptions underlying elements of AEMI’s experience and outcomes reflect the persistent ways in which ethnocultural diversity is rendered as a problem to be surmounted or a liability to be redressed, rather than as an asset to be built upon or a resource to be valued and mobilised. AEMI’s explicit effort to engage with CALD communities in building overall community resilience was important in its tacit acknowledgement that emergency and disaster services were (and often remain) under-resourced and under-prepared in dealing with the complexities of cultural diversity in emergency situations. Despite these good intentions, however, while the program produced some positive outcomes and contributed to crucial relationship building between CALD communities and emergency services within various jurisdictions, it also continued to frame the challenge of working with cultural diversity as a problem of increased vulnerability during disasters for recently arrived and refugee background CALD individuals and communities. This highlights a common feature in community resilience-building initiatives, which is to focus on those who are already ‘robust’ versus those who are ‘vulnerable’ in relation to resilience indicators, and whose needs may require different or additional resources in order to be met. At one level, this is a pragmatic resourcing issue: national agencies understandably want to put their people, energy and dollars where they are most needed in pursuit of a steady-state unified national response at times of crisis. Nor should it be argued that at least some CALD groups, particularly those from new arrival and refugee communities, are not vulnerable in at least some of the ways and for some of the reasons suggested in the program evaluation. However, the consistent focus on CALD communities as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘in need’ is problematic, as well as partial. It casts members of these communities as structurally and inherently less able and less resilient in the context of disasters and emergencies: in some sense, as those who, already ‘victims’ of chronic social deficits such as low English proficiency, social isolation and a mysterious unidentified set of ‘cultural factors’, can become doubly victimised in acute crisis and disaster scenarios. In what is by now a familiar trope, the description of CALD communities as ‘vulnerable’ precludes asking questions about what they do have, what they do know, and what they do or can contribute to how we respond to disaster and emergency events in our communities. A more profound problem in this sphere revolves around working out how best to engage CALD communities and individuals within existing approaches to disaster and emergency preparedness and response. This reflects a fundamental but unavoidable limitation of disaster preparedness models: they are innately spatially and geographically bounded, and consequently understand ‘communities’ in these terms, rather than expanding definitions of ‘community’ to include the dimensions of community-as-social-relations. While some good engagement outcomes were achieved locally around cross-cultural knowledge for emergency services workers, the AEMI program fell short of asking some of the harder questions about how emergency and disaster service scaffolding and resilience-building approaches might themselves need to change or transform, using a cross-cutting model of ‘communities’ as both geographic places and multicultural spaces (Bartowiak-Théron and Crehan) in order to be more effective in national scenarios in which cultural diversity should be taken for granted. Toward Acknowledgement of Resilience Capital Most significantly, the AEMI program did not produce any recognition of the ways in which CALD communities already possess resilience capital, or consider how this might be drawn on in formulating stronger community initiatives around disaster and threats preparedness for the future. Of course, not all individuals within such communities, nor all communities across varying circumstances, will demonstrate resilience, and we need to be careful of either overgeneralising or romanticising the kinds and degrees of ‘resilience capital’ that may exist within them. Nevertheless, at least some have developed ways of withstanding crises and adapting to new conditions of living. This is particularly so in connection with individual and group behaviours around resource sharing, care-giving and social responsibility under adverse circumstances (Grossman and Tahiri) – all of which are directly relevant to emergency and disaster response. While some of these resilient behaviours may have been nurtured or enhanced by particular experiences and environments, they can, as the discussion of recent literature above suggests, also be rooted more deeply in cultural norms, habits and beliefs. Whatever their origins, for culturally diverse societies to achieve genuine resilience in the face of both natural and human-made disasters, it is critical to call on the ‘social memory’ (Folke et al.) of communities faced with responding to emergencies and crises. Such wellsprings of social memory ‘come from the diversity of individuals and institutions that draw on reservoirs of practices, knowledge, values, and worldviews and is crucial for preparing the system for change, building resilience, and for coping with surprise’ (Adger et al.). Consequently, if we accept the challenge of mapping an approach to cultural diversity as resource rather than relic into our thinking around strengthening community resilience, there are significant gains to be made. For a whole range of reasons, no diversity-sensitive model or measure of resilience should invest in static understandings of ethnicities and cultures; all around the world, ethnocultural identities and communities are in a constant and sometimes accelerated state of dynamism, reconfiguration and flux. But to ignore the resilience capital and potential protective factors that ethnocultural diversity can offer to the strengthening of community resilience more broadly is to miss important opportunities that can help suture the existing disconnects between proactive approaches to intercultural connectedness and social inclusion on the one hand, and reactive approaches to threats, national security and disaster response on the other, undermining the effort to advance effectively on either front. This means that dominant social institutions and structures must be willing to contemplate their own transformation as the result of transcultural engagement, rather than merely insisting, as is often the case, that ‘other’ cultures and communities conform to existing hegemonic paradigms of being and of living. In many ways, this is the most critical step of all. A resilience model and strategy that questions its own culturally informed yet taken-for-granted assumptions and premises, goes out into communities to test and refine these, and returns to redesign its approach based on the new knowledge it acquires, would reflect genuine progress toward an effective transculturational approach to community resilience in culturally diverse contexts.References Adger, W. Neil, Terry P. Hughes, Carl Folke, Stephen R. Carpenter and Johan Rockström. “Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters.” Science 309.5737 (2005): 1036-1039. ‹http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5737/1036.full> Bartowiak-Théron, Isabelle, and Anna Corbo Crehan. “The Changing Nature of Communities: Implications for Police and Community Policing.” Community Policing in Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) Reports, Research and Policy Series 111 (2010): 8-15. Benessaieh, Afef. “Multiculturalism, Interculturality, Transculturality.” Ed. A. Benessaieh. Transcultural Americas/Ameriques Transculturelles. Ottawa: U of Ottawa Press/Les Presses de l’Unversite d’Ottawa, 2010. 11-38. Clauss-Ehlers, Caroline S. “Sociocultural Factors, Resilience and Coping: Support for a Culturally Sensitive Measure of Resilience.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29 (2008): 197-212. Clauss-Ehlers, Caroline S. “Cultural Resilience.” Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology. Ed. C. S. Clauss-Ehlers. New York: Springer, 2010. 324-326. Farrow, David, Anthea Rutter and Rosalind Hurworth. Evaluation of the Inclusive Emergency Management with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities Program. Parkville, Vic.: Centre for Program Evaluation, U of Melbourne, July 2009. ‹http://www.ag.gov.au/www/emaweb/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(9A5D88DBA63D32A661E6369859739356)~Final+Evaluation+Report+-+July+2009.pdf/$file/Final+Evaluation+Report+-+July+2009.pdf>.Folke, Carl, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg. “Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 (2005): 441-73. ‹http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511>. Garmezy, Norman. “The Study of Competence in Children at Risk for Severe Psychopathology.” The Child in His Family: Children at Psychiatric Risk. Vol. 3. Eds. E. J. Anthony and C. Koupernick. New York: Wiley, 1974. 77-97. Grossman, Michele. “Resilient Multiculturalism? Diversifying Australian Approaches to Community Resilience and Cultural Difference”. Global Perspectives on Multiculturalism in the 21st Century. Eds. B. E. de B’beri and F. Mansouri. London: Routledge, 2014. Grossman, Michele, and Hussein Tahiri. Harnessing Resilience Capital in Culturally Diverse Communities to Counter Violent Extremism. Canberra: Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee, forthcoming 2014. Grossman, Michele. “Cultural Resilience and Strengthening Communities”. Safeguarding Australia Summit, Canberra. 23 Sep. 2010. ‹http://www.safeguardingaustraliasummit.org.au/uploader/resources/Michele_Grossman.pdf>. Gunnestad, Arve. “Resilience in a Cross-Cultural Perspective: How Resilience Is Generated in Different Cultures.” Journal of Intercultural Communication 11 (2006). ‹http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr11/gunnestad.htm>. Hajek, Lisa J. “Belonging and Resilience: A Phenomenological Study.” Unpublished Master of Science thesis, U of Wisconsin-Stout. Menomonie, Wisconsin, 2003. Hunter, Cathryn. “Is Resilience Still a Useful Concept When Working with Children and Young People?” Child Family Community Australia (CFA) Paper 2. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2012.Joppke, Christian. "Beyond National Models: Civic Integration Policies for Immigrants in Western Europe". West European Politics 30.1 (2007): 1-22. Liebenberg, Linda, Michael Ungar, and Fons van de Vijver. “Validation of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure-28 (CYRM-28) among Canadian Youth.” Research on Social Work Practice 22.2 (2012): 219-226. Longstaff, Patricia H., Nicholas J. Armstrong, Keli Perrin, Whitney May Parker, and Matthew A. Hidek. “Building Resilient Communities: A Preliminary Framework for Assessment.” Homeland Security Affairs 6.3 (2010): 1-23. ‹http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=6.3.6>. McGhee, Derek. The End of Multiculturalism? Terrorism, Integration and Human Rights. Maidenhead: Open U P, 2008.Mignolo, Walter. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton U P, 2000. Mohaupt, Sarah. “Review Article: Resilience and Social Exclusion.” Social Policy and Society 8 (2009): 63-71.Mouritsen, Per. "The Culture of Citizenship: A Reflection on Civic Integration in Europe." Ed. R. Zapata-Barrero. Citizenship Policies in the Age of Diversity: Europe at the Crossroad." Barcelona: CIDOB Foundation, 2009: 23-35. Mouritsen, Per. “Political Responses to Cultural Conflict: Reflections on the Ambiguities of the Civic Turn.” Ed. P. Mouritsen and K.E. Jørgensen. Constituting Communities. Political Solutions to Cultural Conflict, London: Palgrave, 2008. 1-30. Ortiz, Fernando. Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar. Trans. Harriet de Onís. Intr. Fernando Coronil and Bronislaw Malinowski. Durham, NC: Duke U P, 1995 [1940]. Robins, Kevin. The Challenge of Transcultural Diversities: Final Report on the Transversal Study on Cultural Policy and Cultural Diversity. Culture and Cultural Heritage Department. Strasbourg: Council of European Publishing, 2006. Rutter, Michael. “Protective Factors in Children’s Responses to Stress and Disadvantage.” Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 8 (1979): 324-38. Stein, Mark. “The Location of Transculture.” Transcultural English Studies: Fictions, Theories, Realities. Eds. F. Schulze-Engler and S. Helff. Cross/Cultures 102/ANSEL Papers 12. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2009. 251-266. Ungar, Michael. “Resilience across Cultures.” British Journal of Social Work 38.2 (2008): 218-235. First published online 2006: 1-18. In-text references refer to the online Advance Access edition ‹http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2006/10/18/bjsw.bcl343.full.pdf>. VanBreda, Adrian DuPlessis. Resilience Theory: A Literature Review. Erasmuskloof: South African Military Health Service, Military Psychological Institute, Social Work Research & Development, 2001. Weine, Stevan. “Building Resilience to Violent Extremism in Muslim Diaspora Communities in the United States.” Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 5.1 (2012): 60-73. Welsch, Wolfgang. “Transculturality: The Puzzling Form of Cultures Today.” Spaces of Culture: City, Nation World. Eds. M. Featherstone and S. Lash. London: Sage, 1999. 194-213. Werner, Emmy E., and Ruth S. Smith. Vulnerable But Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of\ Resilience and Youth. New York: McGraw Hill, 1982. NotesThe concept of ‘resilience capital’ I offer here is in line with one strand of contemporary theorising around resilience – that of resilience as social or socio-ecological capital – but moves beyond the idea of enhancing general social connectedness and community cohesion by emphasising the ways in which culturally diverse communities may already be robustly networked and resourceful within micro-communal settings, with new resources and knowledge both to draw on and to offer other communities or the ‘national community’ at large. In effect, ‘resilience capital’ speaks to the importance of finding ‘the communities within the community’ (Bartowiak-Théron and Crehan 11) and recognising their capacity to contribute to broad-scale resilience and recovery.I am indebted for the discussion of the literature on resilience here to Dr Peta Stephenson, Centre for Cultural Diversity and Wellbeing, Victoria University, who is working on a related project (M. Grossman and H. Tahiri, Harnessing Resilience Capital in Culturally Diverse Communities to Counter Violent Extremism, forthcoming 2014).