GP remote consultations with marginalised patients and the importance of place during care: a qualitative study of the role of place in GP consultations.

BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 there been an increase in the use of remote consultations in General Practice in the UK. This leads to the displacement of the consultation outside of the physical GP practice, and its 'emplacement' elsewhere, with underexplored consequences for inequities of healthcare in marginalised groups. AIM: This paper examines the place-making demands that remote consultations make on patients, and the ways that these affect their experiences of care, with a focus on the impact on patients from marginalised groups. DESIGN & SETTING: Ethnography and interview study (n=15) undertaken at three sites in London: a foodbank, a community development organisation, and a drop-in advice centre for migrants. Additionally, GPs (n=5) working at practices in London Digital Health Hub staff (n=4) and staff at fieldwork sites (n=3) were interviewed. METHOD: Ethnographic observation (n=84 hours) and semi-structured interviews (n=27). Interviews were conducted in-person and over the phone and data were analysed through reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The core themes emerging from the data included challenges securing privacy during remote consultations, and the loss of formal healthcare spaces as important places of care. These findings were closely tied to resource access, leading to inequities in experiences of care. CONCLUSION: Remote GP consultations are not "place-less" encounters, and inequities in access to suitable spaces may lead to inequities in experiences of care. Attention should be given to ensuring that patients without appropriate spaces for remote consultations are offered in-person care, or consultation times made more specific to allow for organisation of private space.

Interventions to improve access to primary care for inclusion health groups in England: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Everyone in England has the right to primary care without financial charges. Nevertheless, evidence shows that barriers remain for inclusion health populations such as vulnerable migrants, people experiencing homelessness, Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller (GRT) communities, and people who sell sex. There is little evidence for what works to improve access. This study was a scoping review of interventions to improve access to mainstream primary care for inclusion health groups in England. METHODS: In this scoping review, we searched databases (Embase, Medline, APA PsychInfo, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, Web of Science and CINAHL) and grey literature sources, including the National Health Service and National Institute for Clinical Excellence, for articles published in English between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2020, with no limit on study design. Data were extracted according to inclusion criteria, including interventions taking place in England and targeting people with insecure immigration status, people who sell sex, people experiencing homelessness, and GRT communities. Results were presented in a narrative synthesis. FINDINGS: 39 studies describing one or more interventions were included: four peer-reviewed articles (one randomised trial, two quality improvement projects, and one mixed-methods study protocol) and 25 grey literature items (38 interventions in total). Interventions mostly targeted people with insecure immigration status (17/38, 45%), and a majority (12/38, 32%) took place in London. The most common types of intervention were training, education, and resources (such as leaflets or websites) for patients or staff (25/38, 66%), and most interventions targeted GP registration processes (28/38, 74%). Interventions commonly involved voluntary and community sector organisations (16/38, 42%). Most interventions were not evaluated to understand their effectiveness (23/38, 61%). Sources with evaluations identified staff training, direct patient advocacy, and involvement of people with lived experience as effective elements. INTERPRETATION: Interventions to improve access to primary care for inclusion health groups in England were heterogeneous, commonly undertaken at community level, and developed to serve local inclusion health groups. Considerations for policymakers and practitioners include groups and geographical areas less commonly included in interventions, the elements of positive practice identified in evaluations, and the need for evaluation of future interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR 202050).

Perspectives on registration to primary care from inclusion health groups in England: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Although everyone living in the UK is entitled to access free primary care within the National Health Service (NHS), evidence shows that people in need of health care are wrongly being refused access. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of individuals from inclusion health groups on primary care registration and accessibility. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study. From Oct 5, 2022, to Feb 20, 2023, we surveyed 49 people (36 [73%] men; 12 [24%] women) and interviewed 25 other (14 [56%] men; 11 [44%] women) who were service users of the University College London Hospital Find & Treat mobile service. This service included people with lived experience of homelessness, asylum seeking, addiction, selling sex, and irregular immigration. We recruited these participants through hostels for people with ongoing addiction and complex needs, initial asylum accommodation centres, and day shelters. Our research team included two peer researchers. FINDINGS: Of those surveyed, 25 (51%) perceived their access to primary health-care services as good, and 17 (35%) reported obstacles to going to the general practitioner (GP). Participants described multiple barriers to registering for GP surgeries, including a lack of understanding and poor communication with NHS services, a fear of discrimination, and a lack of digital access that prevents information seeking and access to services. Respondents also reported using emergency services instead of primary care because they were more immediately accessible without previous registration. Facilitators to GP registration included one-on-one support and outreach work that helps people navigate into services and know their rights, and the use of specialist GP services, which are perceived as more accepting, especially for people experiencing homelessness. INTERPRETATION: The barriers to registration identified are related to both individual and group level characteristics and produce both similar and divergent needs between different inclusion health groups. The need for additional support during registration was clear, and our work highlights the requirement for interventions to improve access to primary care for underserved groups, as well as coordinated policy action. One-on-one support in particular, either outreach or provided in services where inclusion health groups spend time, appears to be a key facilitator to ensuring comprehensive and fast access to GP services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).