Improving access to general practice for and with people with severe and multiple disadvantage: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD) who experience combinations of homelessness, substance misuse, violence, abuse, and poor mental health have high health needs and poor access to primary care. AIM: To improve access to general practice for people with SMD by facilitating collaborative service improvement meetings between healthcare staff, people with lived experience of SMD, and those who support them; participants were then interviewed about this work. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Bridging Gaps group is a collaboration between healthcare staff, researchers, women with lived experience of SMD, and a charity that supports them in a UK city. A project was co-produced by the Bridging Gaps group to improve access to general practice for people with SMD, which was further developed with three inner-city general practices. METHOD: Nine service improvement meetings were facilitated at three general practices, and six of these were formally observed. Nine practice staff and four women with lived experience of SMD were interviewed. Three women with lived experience of SMD and one staff member who supports them participated in a focus group. Data were analysed inductively and deductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: By providing time and funding opportunities to motivated general practice staff and involving participants with lived experience of SMD, service changes were made in an effort to improve access for people with SMD. These included prioritising patients on an inclusion patient list with more flexible access, providing continuity for patients via a care coordinator and micro-team of clinicians, and developing an information-sharing document. The process and outcomes improved connections within and between general practices, support organisations, and people with SMD. CONCLUSION: The co-designed strategies described in this study could be adapted locally and evaluated in other areas. Investing in this focused way of working may improve accessibility to health care, health equity, and staff wellbeing.

Trauma-informed co-production: Collaborating and combining expertise to improve access to primary care with women with complex needs.

INTRODUCTION: Health, social care, charitable and justice sectors are increasingly recognising the need for trauma-informed services that seek to recognise signs of trauma, provide appropriate paths to recovery and ensure that services enable people rather than retraumatise. Foundational to the development of trauma-informed services is collaboration with people with lived experience of trauma. Co-production principles may provide a useful framework for this collaboration, due to their emphasis on lived experience, and intent to address power imbalances and promote equity. This article aims to examine trauma-informed and co-production principles to consider the extent to which they overlap and explore how to tailor co-production approaches to support people who have experienced trauma. METHODS: Bridging Gaps is a collaboration between women who have experienced complex trauma, a charity that supports them, primary care clinicians and health researchers to improve access to trauma-informed primary care. Using co-production principles, we aimed to ensure that women who have experienced trauma were key decision-makers throughout the project. Through reflective notes (n = 19), observations of meetings (n = 3), interviews with people involved in the project (n = 9) and reflective group discussions on our experiences, we share learning, successes and failures. Data analysis followed a framework approach, using trauma-informed principles. RESULTS: Co-production processes can require adaptation when working with people who have experienced trauma. We emphasise the need for close partnership working, flexibility and transparency around power dynamics, paying particular attention to aspects of power that are less readily visible. Sharing experiences can retrigger trauma. People conducting co-production work need to understand trauma and how this may impact upon an individual's sense of psychological safety. Long-term funding is vital to enable projects to have enough time for the establishment of trust and delivery of tangible results. CONCLUSIONS: Co-production principles are highly suitable when developing trauma-informed services. Greater consideration needs to be given as to whether and how people share lived experiences, the need for safe spaces, honesty and humility, difficult dynamics between empowerment and safety and whether and when blurring boundaries may be helpful. Our findings have applicability to policy-making, funding and service provision to enable co-production processes to become more trauma-informed. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Bridging Gaps was started by a group of women who have experienced complex trauma, including addiction, homelessness, mental health problems, sexual exploitation, domestic and sexual violence and poverty, with a general practitioner (GP) who provides healthcare to this population, alongside a support worker from the charity One25, a charity that supports some of the most marginalised women in Bristol to heal and thrive. More GPs and healthcare researchers joined the group and they have been meeting fortnightly for a period of 4 years with the aim of improving access to trauma-informed primary care. The group uses co-production principles to work together, and we aim to ensure that women who have experienced trauma are key decision-makers throughout our work together. This article is a summary of our learning, informed by discussion, observations and interviews with members of the group.

Population child health: understanding and addressing complex health needs.

Advances in paediatric care mean that more children with complex medical problems (heart disease, neurodevelopmental problems and so on) are surviving their early years. This has important implications for the design and delivery of healthcare given their extensive multidisciplinary requirements and susceptibility to poor outcomes when not optimally managed. Importantly, their medical needs must also be understood and addressed within the context of the child and family's life circumstances. There is growing recognition that many other factors contribute to a child's complex health needs (CHNs), for example, family problems, fragmentation of health and care provision, psychological difficulties or social issues.To facilitate proactive care for these patients, we must develop accurate ways to identify them. Whole Systems Integrated Care-an online platform that integrates routinely collected data from primary and secondary care-offers an example of how to do this. An algorithm applied to this data identifies children with CHNs from the entire patient population. When tested in a large inner-city GP practice, this analysis shows good concordance with clinical opinion and identifies complex children in the population to a much higher proportion than expected. Ongoing refinement of these data-driven processes will allow accurate quantification and identification of need in local populations, thus aiding the development of tailored services.

Antidepressant treatment for postnatal depression.

BACKGROUND: Postnatal depression is a common disorder that can have adverse short- and long-term effects on maternal morbidity, the new infant and the family as a whole. Treatment is often largely by social support and psychological interventions. It is not known whether antidepressants are an effective and safe choice for treatment of this disorder. This review was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of different antidepressants and to compare their effectiveness with other forms of treatment, placebo or treatment as usual. It is an update of a review first published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs in comparison with any other treatment (psychological, psychosocial or pharmacological), placebo or treatment as usual for postnatal depression. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR) to 11 July 2014. This register contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE, (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We also searched international trial registries and contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of women with depression with onset up to six months postpartum that compared antidepressant treatment (alone or in combination with another treatment) with any other treatment, placebo or treatment as usual. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the trial reports. We requested missing information from investigators wherever possible. We sought data to allow an intention-to-treat analysis. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool data where sufficient comparable studies were identified. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials with 596 participants in this review. All studies had a randomised controlled parallel group design, with two conducted in the UK, three in the US and one in Israel. Meta-analyses were performed to pool data on response and remission from studies comparing antidepressants with placebo. No meta-analyses could be conducted for other comparisons due to the small number of trials identified.Four studies compared selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with placebo (two using sertraline, one using paroxetine and one using fluoxetine; 233 participants in total). In two of these studies both the experimental and placebo groups also received psychological therapy. Pooled risk ratios based on data from three of these studies (146 participants) showed that women randomised to SSRIs had higher rates of response and remission than those randomised to placebo (response: RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.03; remission: RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.98); the fourth study did not report data on response or remission.One study (254 participants) compared antidepressant treatment with treatment as usual (for the first four weeks) followed by listening visits. The study found significantly higher rates of improvement in the antidepressant group than treatment-as-usual group after the first four weeks, but no difference between antidepressants and listening visits at the later follow-up. In addition, one study comparing sertraline with nortriptyline (a tricyclic antidepressant) found no difference in effectiveness (109 participants).Side effects were experienced by a substantial proportion of women, but there was no evidence of a meaningful difference in the number of adverse effects between treatment arms in any study. There were very limited data on adverse effects experienced by breastfed infants, with no long-term follow-up. All but one of the studies were assessed as being at high or uncertain risk of attrition bias and selective outcome reporting. In particular, one of the placebo-controlled studies had over 50% drop-out. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for this review was very limited, with a small number of studies and little information on a number of important outcomes, particularly regarding potential effects on the child. Risk of bias, for example from high attrition rates, as well as low representativeness of participants (e.g. exclusion of women with severe or chronic depression in several trials) also limit the conclusions that can be drawn.Pooled estimates for response and remission found that SSRIs were significantly more effective than placebo for women with postnatal depression. However the quality of evidence contributing to this comparison was assessed as very low owing to the small sample size for this comparison (146 participants from three studies), the risk of bias in included studes and the inclusion of one study where all participants in both study arms additionally received psychological therapy. There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether, and for whom, antidepressant or psychological/psychosocial treatments are more effective, or whether some antidepressants are more effective or better tolerated than others. There is also inadequate evidence on whether the benefits of antidepressants persist beyond eight weeks or whether they have short- or long-term adverse effects on breastfeeding infants.Professionals treating women with severe depression in the postnatal period will need to draw on other evidence, including trials among general adult populations and observational studies of antidepressant safety when breastfeeding (although the potential for confounding in non-randomised studies must be considered). More RCTs are needed with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up, including assessment of the impact on the child and safety of breastfeeding. Further larger-scale trials comparing antidepressants with alternative treatment modalities are also required.