Amy Dehn Lunn

Aim: To examine how co-located community and health services in primary care could support disadvantaged groups. Background: Co-locating services is thought to improve access, collaboration, and patient outcomes. There are thousands of primary care premises across the UK. At a time of stagnating or widening health inequalities, they present an ideal opportunity to support communities, especially in disadvantaged areas. Method: We conducted a systematic umbrella review. Articles were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase with supplementary snowball and grey literature searches. Reviews of co-located services supporting disadvantaged groups in primary care between 2010 and February 2024 were included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Two reviewers assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed quality. Outcomes relating to health, welfare, healthcare utilization, and activity and processes were assessed. Data were narratively synthesized using a convergent integrated approach. Findings: 2626 studies were screened, supplemented by snowball and grey literatures searches. Thirteen reviews were included for synthesis. One review included meta-analysis. Three models of care were identified; legal advice, welfare advice, and complementary health care. Data were synthesized according to themes: access and engagement, quality of care, efficiency, improved health, and improved social factors. We found co-located services can improve access to care, engagement in treatment, and quality of care for disadvantaged groups. Improvements to social determinants of health and mental health and well-being outcomes were reported. Findings were inconsistent when considering the impact of co-location on efficiency. We conclude that co-located services in primary care have the potential to improve identification of people most in need and improve their access to high quality health care and social support. Policy makers and practitioners should maximize the use of primary care estates to support disadvantaged groups and communities.

Background Quality improvement (QI) is used by healthcare organisations internationally to improve care. Unless QI explicitly addresses equity, projects that aim to improve care may exacerbate health and care inequalities for disadvantaged groups. There are several QI frameworks used in primary care, but we do not know the extent to which they consider equity. This work aimed to investigate whether primary care QI frameworks consider equity. Methods We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and key websites to compile a list of the QI frameworks used in primary care. This list was refined by an expert panel. Guidance documents for each of the QI frameworks were identified from national websites or QI organisations. We undertook a document analysis of the guidance using NVivo. Results We analysed 15 guidance documents. We identified the following themes: (1) there was a limited discussion of equity or targeted QI for disadvantaged groups in the documents, (2) there were indirect considerations of inequalities via patient involvement or targeting QI to patient demographics and (3) there was a greater focus on efficiency than equity in the documents. Conclusion There is limited consideration of equity in QI frameworks used in primary care. Where equity is discussed, it is implicit and open to interpretation. This research demonstrates a need for frameworks to be revised with an explicit equity focus to ensure the distribution of benefits from QI is equitable.