Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We frequently fail to meaningfully incorporate patient voice in the development of health services, in particular the voices of those who are most disadvantaged., Aim: To share learning from a co-production project to improve primary care experience for those with multiple disadvantage and lived experience of trauma., Method: We formed a collective of women (Bridging Gaps). Group members had lived experience of poverty, mental health challenges, addictions, homelessness, and sexual exploitation. Other members were researchers, GPs, and members of a third-sector organisation. We worked alongside local GPs to change how services were delivered. We collected interviews ( n = 9), ethnographic data from group meetings ( n = 3), and reflective notes from group members ( n = 19). Data on our process were analysed using a framework approach drawn from the principles of trauma-informed care., Results: We highlight the challenges for those with multiple disadvantages and trauma experience to meaningfully and safely engage in traditional Patient Participation Group (PPG) models. True co-production of services requires adequate resources and close collaborative working with local community organisations. Groups must be facilitated by those with relevant experience and the ability to both notice and manage power dynamics within the room. With sufficient support, co-production models have potential to empower group participants and improve health services., Conclusion: Partnership working between GPs, the third sector, and other organisations is vital. This can allow GPs to benefit from the expertise of those with relevant lived experience in tackling health inequalities., (© British Journal of General Practice 2024.)