Ethnic inequalities during clinical placement: A qualitative study of student nurses' experiences within the London National Health Service.

AIM: To understand how student nurse experiences on clinical placement, within National Health Service (NHS) hospitals, differ for ethnic minority and White British groups. DESIGN: A qualitative thematic analysis with an inductive approach. METHODS: Data from semi-structured interviews with 21 London (United Kingdom) hospital-based student nurses were examined using thematic analysis. Participants were interviewed as part of the Tackling Inequalities and Discrimination Experiences in Health Services (TIDES) study and asked about their experiences during clinical placement. RESULTS: Five main themes were identified: (1) Role of mentors, (2) Discrimination and unfair treatment, (3) Speaking up/out, (4) Career progression, and (5) Consequences of adverse experiences. All themes were linked, with the social dynamics and workplace environment (referred to as "ward culture") providing a context that normalizes mistreatment experienced by nursing students. Students from ethnic minority backgrounds reported racism as well as cultural and/or religious microaggressions. While being valued for their race and ethnicity, White British students also experienced discrimination and inequity due to their age, sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Students from both White British and ethnic minority groups acknowledged that being treated badly was a barrier to career progression. Ethnic minority students also noted the lack of diverse representation within senior nursing positions discouraged career progression within the UK NHS. CONCLUSION: These initial experiences of inequality and discrimination are liable to shape a student's perspective of their profession and ability to progress within nursing. The NHS is responsible for ensuring that student nurses' developmental opportunities are equal, irrespective of ethnicity. IMPACT: Ward culture is perpetuated by others who normalize mistreatment and concurrently disadvantage ethnic minority students, making them feel unvalued. This in turn impacts both staff retention and career progression within the NHS. Training assessors should be aware of the existing culture of discrimination within clinical placements and work to eradicate it.

A comparison of single and intersectional social identities associated with discrimination and mental health service use: data from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey in England.

Inequities in mental health service use (MHSU) and treatment are influenced by social stratification processes linked to socially contextualised interactions between individuals, organisations and institutions. These complex relations underpin observed inequities and their experience by people at the intersections of social statuses. Discrimination is one important mechanism influencing such differences. We compared inequities in MHSU/treatment through single and intersectional status analyses, accounting for need. We assessed whether past-year discrimination differentially influences MHSU/treatment across single and intersecting statuses. Data came from a population survey (collected 2014-2015) nationally representative of English households (N = 7546). We used a theory and datadriven approach (latent class analysis) which identified five intersectional groups in the population comprising common combinations of social statuses. Single status analyses identified characteristics associated with MHSU/treatment (being a sexual minority (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.65 95% CI:1.09-2.50), female (AOR 1.71, 95% CI:1.45-2.02), economically inactive (AOR 2.02, 95% CI:1.05-3.90), in the most deprived quintile (AOR 1.33, 95% CI:1.02-1.74), and Black (AOR 0.36 95% CI:0.20-0.66)). Intersectional analyses detected patterns not apparent from single status analyses. Compared to the most privileged group ("White British, highly educated, employed, high social class"), "Retired White British" had greater odds of MHSU/treatment (AOR 1.88, 95% CI:1.53-2.32) while "Employed migrants" had lower odds (AOR 0.39, 95% CI:0.27-0.55). Past-year discrimination was associated with certain disadvantaged social statuses and greater MHSU/treatment but-except for sexual minorities-adjusting for discrimination had little influence using either analytic approach. Observing patterns only by single social statuses masks potentially unanticipated and contextually varying inequities. The latent class approach offers policy-relevant insights into patterns and mechanisms of inequity but may mask other key intersectional patterns by statuses less common or under represented in surveys (e.g. UK-born ethnic minority groups). We propose multiple, context-relevant, theory-driven approaches to intersectional understanding of mental health inequalities.

Impact of workplace discrimination and harassment among National Health Service staff working in London trusts: results from the TIDES study.

BACKGROUND: Harassment and discrimination in the National Health Service (NHS) has steadily increased over the past 5 years with London being the worst performing region. There is a lack of data and research on the impact this is having on staff health and job satisfaction. Such data are necessary to inform the development of effective workplace interventions to mitigate the effects these experiences have on staff. AIMS: Examine the impact of harassment and discrimination on NHS staff working in London trusts, utilising data from the 2019 TIDES cross-sectional survey. METHOD: In total, 931 London-based healthcare practitioners participated in the TIDES survey. Regression analysis was used to examine associations between the sociodemographic characteristics of participants, exposure to discrimination and harassment, and how such exposures are associated with physical and mental health, job satisfaction and sickness absence. RESULTS: Women, Black ethnic minority staff, migrants, nurses and healthcare assistants were most at risk of discrimination and/or harassment. Experiencing either of the main exposures was associated with probable anxiety or depression. Experiencing harassment was also associated with moderate-to-severe somatic symptoms. Finally, both witnessing and experiencing the main exposures were associated with low job satisfaction and long periods of sickness absence. CONCLUSIONS: NHS staff, particularly those working in London trusts, are exposed to unprecedented levels of discrimination and harassment from their colleagues. Within the context of an already stretched and under-resourced NHS, in order to combat poor job satisfaction and high turnover rates, the value of all healthcare practitioners must be visibly and continuously reinforced by all management and senior leaders.