Boundary-Work and the Distribution of Care for Survivors of Domestic Violence and Abuse in Primary Care Settings:Perspectives From U.K. Clinicians

Health care encounters are opportunities for primary care practitioners to identify women experiencing domestic violence and abuse (DVA). Increasing DVA support in primary care is a global policy priority but discussion about DVA during consultations remains rare. This article explores how primary care teams in the United Kingdom negotiate the boundaries of their responsibilities for providing DVA support. In-depth interviews were undertaken with 13 general practitioners (GPs) in two urban areas of the United Kingdom. Interviews were analyzed thematically. Analysis focused on the boundary practices participants undertook to establish their professional remit regarding abuse. GPs maintained permeable boundaries with specialist DVA support services. This enabled ongoing negotiation of the role played by clinicians in identifying DVA. This permeability was achieved by limiting the boundaries of the GP role in the care of patients with DVA to identification, with the work of providing support distributed to local specialist DVA agencies

Access to healthcare for street sex workers in the UK:perspectives and best practice guidance from a national cross-sectional survey of frontline workers

BACKGROUND: Street sex workers (SSWs) are a highly marginalised and stigmatised group who carry an extremely high burden of unmet health need. They experience multiple and interdependent health and social problems and extreme health inequality. Despite high levels of chronic physical and mental ill-health, there is little evidence of effective healthcare provision for this group. They are often considered ‘hard to reach’, but many individuals and organisations have extensive experience of working with this group. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of professionals who work with SSWs in the UK on their perspectives on their access to primary care, mental health, sexual health and drug and alcohol services, how well these services met the needs of SSWs and suggestions of best practice. RESULTS: 50 professionals mostly from England, responded. Mainstream general practice and mental health services were found to be largely inaccessible to SSWs. Sexual health, drug and alcohol services and homeless health services better met their needs; this was mostly attributed to flexible services and collaborations with organisations who work closely with SSWs. The main challenges in providing healthcare to SSWs were services being inflexible, under-resourced services and services not being trauma-informed. Best practice in providing healthcare to SSWs includes- seamless partnership working between agencies with case worker support; peer-involvement in service development and engagement, a range of health provision including outreach, presence in community spaces and fast-track access into mainstream services; trauma-informed, gender-sensitive health services in a welcoming environment with flexible, responsive appointment and drop-in systems and consistent clinicians with specialist knowledge of substance misuse, mental health, domestic violence and homelessness. CONCLUSIONS: Access to healthcare for SSWs in the UK is highly variable but largely inadequate with regards to primary care and mental health provision. The examples of positive healthcare provision and partnership working presented here demonstrate the feasibility of accessible healthcare that meets the needs of SSWs. These need to be systematically implemented and evaluated to understand their impact and implications. As we build back from COVID-19 there is an urgent need to make accessible healthcare provision for marginalised groups the norm, not the exception. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07581-7

Experiences of domestic violence and mental disorders:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the extent to which being a victim of domestic violence is associated with different mental disorders in men and women. We aimed to estimate the prevalence and odds of being a victim of domestic violence by diagnostic category and sex. METHODS: Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources: Eighteen biomedical and social sciences databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO); journal hand searches; scrutiny of references and citation tracking of included articles; expert recommendations, and an update of a systematic review on victimisation and mental disorder. Inclusion criteria: observational and intervention studies reporting prevalence or odds of being a victim of domestic violence in men and women (aged ≥16 years), using validated diagnostic measures of mental disorder. Procedure: Data were extracted and study quality independently appraised by two reviewers. Analysis: Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool estimates of prevalence and odds. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included. There is a higher risk of experiencing adult lifetime partner violence among women with depressive disorders (OR 2.77 (95% CI 1.96–3.92), anxiety disorders (OR 4.08 (95% CI 2.39–6.97), and PTSD (OR 7.34 95% CI 4.50–11.98), compared to women without mental disorders. Insufficient data were available to calculate pooled odds for other mental disorders, family violence (i.e. violence perpetrated by a non-partner), or violence experienced by men. Individual studies reported increased odds for women and men for all diagnostic categories, including psychoses, with a higher prevalence reported for women. Few longitudinal studies were found so the direction of causality could not be investigated. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence and increased likelihood of being a victim of domestic violence in men and women across all diagnostic categories, compared to people without disorders. Longitudinal studies are needed to identify pathways to being a victim of domestic violence to optimise healthcare responses

Challenges of safeguarding via remote consulting during the COVID-19 pandemic:a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required general practice to rapidly adapt to remote consultations and assessment of patients, creating new, and exacerbating existing, vulnerabilities for many patients. AIM: To explore GP perspectives and concerns about safeguarding practice during the pandemic, focusing on challenges and opportunities created by remote consultation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study. METHOD: Eighteen GPs from Oxford, London, Southampton, Liverpool, Manchester, and Reading were interviewed between June and November 2020, using a flexible topic guide and fictional vignettes to explore child and adult safeguarding scenarios. Interviews were audio-recorded, thematically coded, and analysed. RESULTS: GPs worried about missing observational information during remote consultations and that conversations might not be private or safe. Loss of continuity and pooled triage lists were seen as further weakening safeguarding opportunities. GPs experienced remote consulting as more ‘transactional’, with reduced opportunities to explore ‘other reasons’ including new safeguarding needs. However, they also recognised that remote consulting created opportunities for some vulnerable patients. While supporting known vulnerable patients was difficult, identifying new or unknown vulnerabilities was harder still. Most reported that remote consulting during COVID-19 was harder, riskier, and emotionally draining, contributing to increased GP anxiety and reduced job satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The GPs interviewed raised important concerns about how to identify and manage safeguarding in the context of remote consultations. Current guidance recommends face-to-face consultation for safeguarding concerns, but pressure to use remote forms of access (within or beyond the pandemic) and the fact that safeguarding needs may be unknown makes this an issue that warrants urgent attention