Homeless healthcare: raising the standards

'What does good look like'-exploring access to healthcare for the homeless population in Gateshead, England

BACKGROUND

individuals who are homeless encounter extreme health inequalities and as a result often suffer poor health. This study aims to explore ways in which access to healthcare could be improved for individuals who are homeless in Gateshead, UK.

METHODS

twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with people working with the homeless community in a non-clinical setting. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

six themes were identified under the broad category of 'what does good look like', in terms of improving access to healthcare. These were: facilitating GP registration; training to reduce stigma and to provide more holistic care; joined-up working in which existing services communicate rather than work in isolation; utilising the voluntary sector as support workers could actively support access to healthcare and provide advocacy; specialised roles such as specialised clinicians, mental health workers or link workers; and specialised bespoke services for the homeless community.

CONCLUSIONS

the study revealed issues locally for the homeless community accessing healthcare. Many of the proposed actions to facilitate access to healthcare involved building upon good practice and enhancing existing services. The feasibility and cost-effectiveness of interventions suggested requires further assessment.

The Health Needs of Regionally Based Individuals Who Experience Homelessness: Perspectives of Service Providers

The bidirectional relationship between homelessness and poor health and the barriers that individuals who experience homelessness face when trying to access healthcare are well documented. There is, however, little Australian research exploring the situation of individuals who experience homelessness in regional contexts and, moreover, from the perspective of service providers. A qualitative descriptive methodology underpinned this study, with in-depth semi-structured interviews being conducted with 11 service providers to identify barriers to care faced by people who experience homelessness and barriers that service providers themselves experience in supporting this population. The key barriers identified were client-level barriers: living day-by-day, financial, health literacy, mental health conditions, behaviour, safety and stigma; provider-level barriers: few bulk-billing doctors, fragmented services, limited resources, negative past experiences with healthcare; and system level barriers: transportation, over-stretched healthcare services. The combined impact of these barriers has significantly contributed to the desperate situation of people experiencing homelessness in Launceston. This situation is likely replicated in other regional populations in Australia. Given that individuals experiencing homelessness have higher rates of every measure in health inequality, steps need to be taken to reduce barriers, and a standardised approach to health care urgently needs to be implemented by governments at the state and national level to improve the health of regionally based individuals experiencing homelessness.

Improving care transfers for homeless patients after hospital discharge: a realist evaluation

Background

In 2013, 70% of people who were homeless on admission to hospital were discharged back to the street without having their care and support needs addressed. In response, the UK government provided funding for 52 new specialist homeless hospital discharge schemes. This study employed RAMESES II (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) guidelines between September 2015 and 2019 to undertake a realist evaluation to establish what worked, for whom, under what circumstances and why. It was hypothesised that delivering outcomes linked to consistently safe, timely care transfers for homeless patients would depend on hospital discharge schemes implementing a series of high-impact changes (resource mechanisms). These changes encompassed multidisciplinary discharge co-ordination (delivered through clinically led homeless teams) and ‘step-down’ intermediate care. These facilitated time-limited care and support and alternative pathways out of hospital for people who could not go straight home.

Methods

The realist hypothesis was tested empirically and refined through three work packages. Work package 1 generated seven qualitative case studies, comparing sites with different types of specialist homeless hospital discharge schemes (n = 5) and those with no specialist discharge scheme (standard care) (n = 2). Methods of data collection included interviews with 77 practitioners and stakeholders and 70 people who were homeless on admission to hospital. A ‘data linkage’ process (work package 2) and an economic evaluation (work package 3) were also undertaken. The data linkage process resulted in data being collected on > 3882 patients from 17 discharge schemes across England. The study involved people with lived experience of homelessness in all stages.

Results

There was strong evidence to support our realist hypothesis. Specialist homeless hospital discharge schemes employing multidisciplinary discharge co-ordination and ‘step-down’ intermediate care were more effective and cost-effective than standard care. Specialist care was shown to reduce delayed transfers of care. Accident and emergency visits were also 18% lower among homeless patients discharged at a site with a step-down service than at those without. However, there was an impact on the effectiveness of the schemes when they were underfunded or when there was a shortage of permanent supportive housing and longer-term care and support. In these contexts, it remained (tacitly) accepted practice (across both standard and specialist care sites) to discharge homeless patients to the streets, rather than delay their transfer. We found little evidence that discharge schemes fired a change in reasoning with regard to the cultural distance that positions ‘homeless patients’ as somehow less vulnerable than other groups of patients. We refined our hypothesis to reflect that high-impact changes need to be underpinned by robust adult safeguarding.

Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the outcomes of homeless patients discharged from hospital in the UK. Owing to issues with the comparator group, the effectiveness analysis undertaken for the data linkage was limited to comparisons of different types of specialist discharge scheme (rather than specialist vs. standard care).

Future work

There is a need to consider approaches that align with those for value or alliance-based commissioning where the evaluative gaze is shifted from discrete interventions to understanding how the system is working as a whole to deliver outcomes for a defined patient population.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Understanding the surgical care needs and use of outpatient surgical care services among homeless patients at the Ottawa Hospital

Background

The use of outpatient health care services by homeless people is low compared to their high level of need; however, it is unclear whether this applies to surgical care. We sought to describe surgical care access among homeless patients in a Canadian tertiary care setting.

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of adult (age > 18 yr) patients with no fixed address or a shelter address who presented to The Ottawa Hospital Emergency Department from Jan. 1, 2013, to Dec. 31, 2014, and required surgical referral. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics.

Results

A surgical referral was initiated in 129 emergency department visits for 97 patients (77 men [79%], mean age 46.7 yr). Most patients lived in shelters (77 [79%]) and had provincial health insurance (82 [84%]), but only 35 (36%) had a primary care physician. The mean number visits for any reason was 7.9 (standard deviation 13.7) (range 1–106). The majority of surgical referrals (83 [64.3%]) were for traumatic injuries, and the most frequently consulted service (52 [40.3%]) was orthopedic surgery. Just under half (48 [49%]) of referred patients attended at least 1 outpatient appointment, and only a third (33 [34%]) completed full follow-up.

Conclusion

Homeless patients presenting to an emergency department and requiring surgical care were predominantly men living in shelters, most frequently seeking care for traumatic injuries. Current outpatient services may not meet the surgical care needs of these patients, as many do not access them. Alternative approaches to outpatient care must be considered, particularly among high-need services such as orthopedics, to support surgical care access among this population.

Challenges to discussing palliative care with people experiencing homelessness: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views and experiences of people who are homeless and those supporting them regarding conversations and approaches to palliative care SETTING: Data were collected between October 2015 and October 2016 in homeless hostels and day centres and with staff from primary and secondary healthcare providers and social care services from three London boroughs.

PARTICIPANTS

People experiencing homelessness (n=28), formerly homeless people (n=10), health and social care providers (n=48), hostel staff (n=30) and outreach staff (n=10). METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, participants were recruited to interviews and focus groups across three London boroughs. Views and experiences of end-of-life care were explored with people with personal experience of homelessness, health and social care professionals and hostel and outreach staff. Saturation was reached when no new themes emerged from discussions.

RESULTS

28 focus groups and 10 individual interviews were conducted. Participants highlighted that conversations exploring future care preferences and palliative care with people experiencing homelessness are rare. Themes identified as challenges to such conversations included attitudes to death; the recovery focused nature of services for people experiencing homelessness; uncertainty regarding prognosis and place of care; and fear of negative impact.

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights the need for a different approach to supporting people who are homeless and are experiencing advanced ill health, one that incorporates uncertainty and promotes well-being, dignity and choice. We propose parallel planning and mapping as a way of working with uncertainty. We acknowledge that these approaches will not always be straightforward, nor will they be suitable for everyone, yet moving the focus of conversations about the future away from death and dying, towards the present and the future may facilitate conversations and enable the wishes of people who are homeless to be known and explored.

Hospital care and costs for homeless people

The national picture of the comparative costs and diagnoses of hospitalised homeless patients are examined using the 'no fixed abode' flag in English hospital statistics. Comparable studies sample patients in single cities, eg New York and Toronto. The most common diagnosis is substance misuse; the share of homeless NHS patients with this diagnosis is rising, and now equals that found in North American cities. About half of the cost of homeless patients relates to diagnoses of mental illness, although these comprise a much smaller share of homeless patients than in North America. Hospital costs for homeless patients - both total and per admission - have fallen significantly in recent years, primarily because of fewer admissions and shorter lengths of stay for mentally ill patients. Aims to reduce NHS costs at the level of individual institutions have often shaped policy. Broader policy to prevent and reduce homelessness offers substantial long-term reductions in the cost of chronic care.

The impact of the Health and Social Care Act, 2012 on the health and wellbeing of rough sleepers

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of the Health and Social Care Act, 2012 on London’s rough sleepers as seen from the perspective of one former homeless service user (currently working as a support worker in a day centre providing outreach and “drop in” facilities for people who are street homeless and other vulnerable adults including female sex workers). The discussion centres on some of the unintended impacts of changes to healthcare commissioning; the new arrangements for patient, public representation; and the enhanced role of local councils.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper is grounded in front line practitioner reflection/opinion and draws on practical experience and observation at Spires, as well as research and government papers published by other service providers. The aspirations of the Health and Social Care Act, 2012 are set out before its practical application are examined from the rough sleeper’s dimension.

Findings

Putting clinicians and GPs centre stage in the commissioning and purchasing of healthcare may have some benefits for individual patient choice, but it can also dilute patient public involvement in health and social care with negative effects for vulnerable and excluded groups, including rough sleepers. The terms of reference ascribed to Local Healthwatch Organisations, the official representatives of the people, are narrower than previously and limit their ability to influence official policy. The Act centralises control whilst devolving operational responsibility, especially for public health provision on which rough sleepers often rely. It is suggested that local voluntary organisations and specialist “inclusion” health groups are increasingly being expected to take over responsibility for delivering health and social care and that mainstream collaboration is much reduced rather than enhanced by this fragmentation.

Research limitations/implications

This review is based on the opinion of an “expert by experience” which may not be representative.

Originality/value

This is one of few papers which present a front line service user/practitioner perspective on the impact of clinical commissioning on services for marginalised groups.

A codex of care: Assessing the Liverpool Hospital Admission and Discharge Protocol for Homeless People

There has recently been an upsurge of interest in the relationship between homelessness and hospital discharge policies and processes in England. In this paper, we investigate the significance of these developments by assessing the Liverpool Hospital Admission and Discharge Protocol for Homeless People. Drawing on in-depth qualitative interviews with hospital-based clinicians and community-based health and social care practitioners, we identify four central features of the Liverpool protocol: (1) local prioritisation, (2) good systems of communication, (3) partnership working and (4) access to appropriate post-discharge care and support. Overall, we contribute to the literature of care coordination by filling a gap in the knowledge base in relation to the multiple and complex needs of homeless people, while delivering important insights into the delivery of integrated care.

Does anticholinergics drug burden relate to global neuro-disability outcome measures and length of hospital stay?

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

To assess the relationship between disability, length of stay (LOS) and anticholinergic burden (ACB) with people following acquired brain or spinal cord injury.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A retrospective case note review assessed total rehabilitation unit admission.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Assessment of 52 consecutive patients with acquired brain/spinal injury and neuropathy in an in-patient neuro-rehabilitation unit of a UK university hospital. Data analysed included: Northwick Park Dependency Score (NPDS), Rehabilitation complexity Scale (RCS), Functional Independence Measure and Functional Assessment Measure FIM-FAM (UK version 2.2), LOS and ACB. Outcome was different in RCS, NPDS and FIM-FAM between admission and discharge.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

A positive change was reported in ACB results in a positive change in NPDS, with no significant effect on FIM-FAM, either Motor or Cognitive, or on the RCS. Change in ACB correlated to the length of hospital stay (regression correlation = -6.64; SE = 3.89). There was a significant harmful impact of increase in ACB score during hospital stay, from low to high ACB on NPDS (OR = 9.65; 95% CI = 1.36-68.64) and FIM-FAM Total scores (OR = 0.03; 95% CI = 0.002-0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a statistically significant correlation of ACB and neuro-disability measures and LOS amongst this patient cohort.