Multi-infection screening for migrant patients in UK primary care : Challenges and opportunities
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd..
Background: Migrants in Europe face a disproportionate burden of undiagnosed infection, including tuberculosis, blood-borne viruses, and parasitic infections and many belong to an under-immunised group. The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) has called for innovative strategies to deliver integrated multi-disease screening to migrants within primary care, yet this is poorly implemented in the UK. We did an in-depth qualitative study to understand current practice, barriers and solutions to infectious disease screening in primary care, and to seek feedback on a collaboratively developed digitalised integrated clinical decision-making tool called Health Catch UP!, which supports multi-infection screening for migrant patients.
Methods: Two-phase qualitative study of UK primary healthcare professionals, in-depth semi-structured telephone-interviews were conducted. In Phase A, we conducted interviews with clinical staff (general practitioners (GPs), nurses, health-care-assistants (HCAs)); these informed data collection and analysis for phase B (administrative staff). Data were analysed iteratively, using thematic analysis.
Results: In phase A, 48 clinicians were recruited (25 GPs, 15 nurses, seven HCAs, one pharmacist) and 16 administrative staff (11 Practice-Managers, five receptionists) in phase B. Respondents were positive about primary care's ability to effectively deliver infectious disease screening. However, we found current infectious disease screening lacks a standardised approach and many practices have no system for screening meaning migrant patients are not always receiving evidence-based care (i.e., NICE/ECDC/UKHSA screening guidelines). Barriers to screening were reported at patient, staff, and system-levels. Respondents reported poor implementation of existing screening initiatives (e.g., regional latent TB screening) citing overly complex pathways that required extensive administrative/clinical time and lacked financial/expert support. Solutions included patient/staff infectious disease champions, targeted training and specialist support, simplified care pathways for screening and management of positive results, and financial incentivisation. Participants responded positively to Health Catch-UP!, stating it would systematically integrate data and support clinical decision-making, increase knowledge, reduce missed screening opportunities, and normalisation of primary care-based infectious disease screening for migrants.
Conclusions: Our results suggest that implementation of infectious disease screening in migrant populations is not comprehensively done in UK primary care. Primary health care professionals support the concept of innovative digital tools like Health Catch-UP! and that they could significantly improve disease detection and effective implementation of screening guidance but that they require robust testing and resourcing.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:9 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of migration and health - 9(2023) vom: 05., Seite 100203 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Carter, Jessica [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Digital tools |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 08.12.2023 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jmh.2023.100203 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM365499757 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM365499757 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231227132308.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jmh.2023.100203 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1226.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM365499757 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38059072 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Carter, Jessica |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Multi-infection screening for migrant patients in UK primary care |b Challenges and opportunities |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 08.12.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. | ||
| 520 | |a Background: Migrants in Europe face a disproportionate burden of undiagnosed infection, including tuberculosis, blood-borne viruses, and parasitic infections and many belong to an under-immunised group. The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) has called for innovative strategies to deliver integrated multi-disease screening to migrants within primary care, yet this is poorly implemented in the UK. We did an in-depth qualitative study to understand current practice, barriers and solutions to infectious disease screening in primary care, and to seek feedback on a collaboratively developed digitalised integrated clinical decision-making tool called Health Catch UP!, which supports multi-infection screening for migrant patients | ||
| 520 | |a Methods: Two-phase qualitative study of UK primary healthcare professionals, in-depth semi-structured telephone-interviews were conducted. In Phase A, we conducted interviews with clinical staff (general practitioners (GPs), nurses, health-care-assistants (HCAs)); these informed data collection and analysis for phase B (administrative staff). Data were analysed iteratively, using thematic analysis | ||
| 520 | |a Results: In phase A, 48 clinicians were recruited (25 GPs, 15 nurses, seven HCAs, one pharmacist) and 16 administrative staff (11 Practice-Managers, five receptionists) in phase B. Respondents were positive about primary care's ability to effectively deliver infectious disease screening. However, we found current infectious disease screening lacks a standardised approach and many practices have no system for screening meaning migrant patients are not always receiving evidence-based care (i.e., NICE/ECDC/UKHSA screening guidelines). Barriers to screening were reported at patient, staff, and system-levels. Respondents reported poor implementation of existing screening initiatives (e.g., regional latent TB screening) citing overly complex pathways that required extensive administrative/clinical time and lacked financial/expert support. Solutions included patient/staff infectious disease champions, targeted training and specialist support, simplified care pathways for screening and management of positive results, and financial incentivisation. Participants responded positively to Health Catch-UP!, stating it would systematically integrate data and support clinical decision-making, increase knowledge, reduce missed screening opportunities, and normalisation of primary care-based infectious disease screening for migrants | ||
| 520 | |a Conclusions: Our results suggest that implementation of infectious disease screening in migrant populations is not comprehensively done in UK primary care. Primary health care professionals support the concept of innovative digital tools like Health Catch-UP! and that they could significantly improve disease detection and effective implementation of screening guidance but that they require robust testing and resourcing | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Digital tools | |
| 650 | 4 | |a HIV | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Health equity | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Hepatitis B | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Hepatitis C | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Infectious disease screening | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Migrant | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Parasitic infection | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Primary care | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Tuberculosis | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Knights, Felicity |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Deal, Anna |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Crawshaw, Alison F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hayward, Sally E |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hall, Rebecca |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Matthews, Philippa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Seedat, Farah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ciftci, Yusuf |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zenner, Dominik |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wurie, Fatima |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Campos-Matos, Ines |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Majeed, Azeem |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Requena-Mendez, Ana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hargreaves, Sally |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of migration and health |d 2020 |g 9(2023) vom: 05., Seite 100203 |w (DE-627)NLM320110494 |x 2666-6235 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:9 |g year:2023 |g day:05 |g pages:100203 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmh.2023.100203 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 9 |j 2023 |b 05 |h 100203 | ||