Understanding and improving the quality of primary care for people in prison: a mixed-methods study.

Sue Bellass, Krysia Canvin, Tracey Farragher, Kate McLintock, Nat Wright, Pip Hearty, Nicola Seanor, Marie Cunningham, Robbie Foy, Laura Sheard
{"title":"Understanding and improving the quality of primary care for people in prison: a mixed-methods study.","authors":"Sue Bellass, Krysia Canvin, Tracey Farragher, Kate McLintock, Nat Wright, Pip Hearty, Nicola Seanor, Marie Cunningham, Robbie Foy, Laura Sheard","doi":"10.3310/GRFV4068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People in prison are generally in poorer health than their peers in the community, often living with chronic illness and multimorbidity. Healthcare research in prisons has largely focused on specific problems, such as substance use; less attention has been paid to conditions routinely managed in primary care, such as diabetes or hypertension. It is important to understand how primary care in prisons is currently delivered in the United Kingdom and how it can be improved, in order to reduce health inequalities.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To understand the quality of primary care in prison, including gaps and variations in care, in order to recommend how quality of prison health care can be improved.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A mixed-methods study with six interlinked work packages.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Predominantly the North of England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between August 2019 and June 2022, we undertook the following work packages: (1) International scoping review of prison healthcare quality indicators. (2) Stakeholder consensus process to identify United Kingdom focused prison healthcare quality indicators. (3) Qualitative interview study with 21 people who had been in prison and 22 prison healthcare staff. (4) Quantitative analysis of anonymised, routinely collected data derived from prison healthcare records (~ 25,000 records across 13 prisons). (5) Stakeholder deliberation process to identify interventions to improve prison health care. (6a) Secondary analysis of the qualitative data set, focusing on mental health and (6b) analysis of the quantitative data set, focusing on health care of three mental health subgroups.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Our scoping review found predominantly only papers from the United States of America and of variable rigour with the main finding being that performance measurement is very challenging in the prison healthcare setting. In collaboration with stakeholders, we prioritised, refined and applied a suite of 30 quality indicators across several healthcare domains. We found considerable scope for improvement in several indicators and wide variations in indicator achievement that could not be attributed to differences in prison population characteristics. Examples of indicators with scope for improvement included: diabetes care, medicines reconciliation and epilepsy review and control. Longer length of stay in prison was generally associated with higher achievement than shorter stays. Indicator achievement was generally low compared to that of community general practice. We found some encouraging trends and relatively good performance for a minority of indicators. Our qualitative interviews found that quality of health care is related to factors that exist at several levels but is heavily influenced by organisational factors, such as understaffing, leading to a reactive and sometimes crisis-led service. Our stakeholder deliberations suggested opportunities for improvement, ideally drawing on data to assess and drive improvement. Our mental health work package found that coded mental illness had mixed associations with indicator achievement, while the interviews revealed that mental distress is viewed by many as an inevitable facet of imprisonment.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Our analyses of indicator achievement were limited by the quality and coverage of available data. Most study findings are localised to England so international applicability may differ.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Marked variations in the quality of primary care in prisons are likely to be attributable to the local organisation and conditions of care delivery. Routinely collected data may offer a credible driver for change.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered at researchregistry.com (Ref: 5098).</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/05/26) and is published in full in <i>Health and Social Care Delivery Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 46. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":519880,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":"12 46","pages":"1-329"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/GRFV4068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: People in prison are generally in poorer health than their peers in the community, often living with chronic illness and multimorbidity. Healthcare research in prisons has largely focused on specific problems, such as substance use; less attention has been paid to conditions routinely managed in primary care, such as diabetes or hypertension. It is important to understand how primary care in prisons is currently delivered in the United Kingdom and how it can be improved, in order to reduce health inequalities.

Objective: To understand the quality of primary care in prison, including gaps and variations in care, in order to recommend how quality of prison health care can be improved.

Design: A mixed-methods study with six interlinked work packages.

Setting: Predominantly the North of England.

Methods: Between August 2019 and June 2022, we undertook the following work packages: (1) International scoping review of prison healthcare quality indicators. (2) Stakeholder consensus process to identify United Kingdom focused prison healthcare quality indicators. (3) Qualitative interview study with 21 people who had been in prison and 22 prison healthcare staff. (4) Quantitative analysis of anonymised, routinely collected data derived from prison healthcare records (~ 25,000 records across 13 prisons). (5) Stakeholder deliberation process to identify interventions to improve prison health care. (6a) Secondary analysis of the qualitative data set, focusing on mental health and (6b) analysis of the quantitative data set, focusing on health care of three mental health subgroups.

Findings: Our scoping review found predominantly only papers from the United States of America and of variable rigour with the main finding being that performance measurement is very challenging in the prison healthcare setting. In collaboration with stakeholders, we prioritised, refined and applied a suite of 30 quality indicators across several healthcare domains. We found considerable scope for improvement in several indicators and wide variations in indicator achievement that could not be attributed to differences in prison population characteristics. Examples of indicators with scope for improvement included: diabetes care, medicines reconciliation and epilepsy review and control. Longer length of stay in prison was generally associated with higher achievement than shorter stays. Indicator achievement was generally low compared to that of community general practice. We found some encouraging trends and relatively good performance for a minority of indicators. Our qualitative interviews found that quality of health care is related to factors that exist at several levels but is heavily influenced by organisational factors, such as understaffing, leading to a reactive and sometimes crisis-led service. Our stakeholder deliberations suggested opportunities for improvement, ideally drawing on data to assess and drive improvement. Our mental health work package found that coded mental illness had mixed associations with indicator achievement, while the interviews revealed that mental distress is viewed by many as an inevitable facet of imprisonment.

Limitations: Our analyses of indicator achievement were limited by the quality and coverage of available data. Most study findings are localised to England so international applicability may differ.

Conclusions: Marked variations in the quality of primary care in prisons are likely to be attributable to the local organisation and conditions of care delivery. Routinely collected data may offer a credible driver for change.

Study registration: This study is registered at researchregistry.com (Ref: 5098).

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/05/26) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 46. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

了解并提高监狱服刑人员的初级保健质量:一项混合方法研究。
背景:与社区中的同龄人相比,狱中人员的健康状况普遍较差,通常患有慢性疾病和多种疾病。监狱中的医疗保健研究主要集中在特定问题上,如药物使用;而对糖尿病或高血压等常规初级医疗管理的疾病关注较少。了解英国目前是如何在监狱中提供初级医疗服务的,以及如何改进这种服务以减少健康不平等现象,这一点非常重要:目的:了解监狱初级保健的质量,包括保健方面的差距和差异,以便就如何提高监狱保健质量提出建议:设计:混合方法研究,包括六个相互关联的工作包:主要在英格兰北部:2019年8月至2022年6月期间,我们开展了以下工作包:(1)对监狱医疗质量指标进行国际范围审查。(2)利益相关者达成共识,确定以英国为重点的监狱医疗质量指标。(3) 对 21 名曾经入狱者和 22 名监狱医护人员进行定性访谈研究。(4) 对从监狱医疗记录(13 所监狱的约 25,000 份记录)中收集的匿名常规数据进行定量分析。(5) 利益相关者商议过程,确定改善监狱医疗保健的干预措施。(6a) 对定性数据集进行二次分析,重点关注心理健康;(6b) 对定量数据集进行分析,重点关注三个心理健康亚群体的医疗保健:我们的范围审查主要发现了来自美国的论文,其严谨性参差不齐,主要发现是绩效衡量在监狱医疗环境中非常具有挑战性。在与利益相关者的合作下,我们确定了 30 项质量指标的优先次序,并对其进行了改进和应用,这些指标涉及多个医疗保健领域。我们发现有几项指标还有很大的改进空间,而且指标完成情况差异很大,这不能归因于监狱人口特征的差异。有改进余地的指标包括:糖尿病护理、药品协调以及癫痫审查和控制。一般来说,监狱服刑时间越长,绩效越高。与社区全科医生相比,指标完成情况普遍较低。我们发现了一些令人鼓舞的趋势,少数指标的绩效相对较好。我们的定性访谈发现,医疗质量与多个层面的因素有关,但受到组织因素的严重影响,如人手不足,导致服务被动反应,有时甚至是危机导向。我们的利益相关者讨论提出了改进的机会,最好是利用数据来评估和推动改进。我们的心理健康工作包发现,编码的精神疾病与指标完成情况的关系不一,而访谈显示,许多人认为精神痛苦是监禁的一个不可避免的方面:我们对指标完成情况的分析受到现有数据质量和覆盖范围的限制。大多数研究结果都局限于英格兰,因此国际适用性可能有所不同:监狱中初级医疗质量的显著差异可能归因于当地提供医疗服务的组织和条件。常规收集的数据可为变革提供可靠的驱动力:本研究已在 researchregistry.com 注册(编号:5098):本奖项由国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的健康与社会护理服务研究计划(NIHR奖项编号:17/05/26)资助,全文发表于《健康与社会护理服务研究》(Health and Social Care Delivery Research)第12卷第46期。更多奖项信息,请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信