Integration, effectiveness and costs of different models of primary health care provision for people who are homeless: an evaluation study

Author:

Crane Maureen1ORCID,Joly Louise1ORCID,Daly Blánaid JM2ORCID,Gage Heather3ORCID,Manthorpe Jill1ORCID,Cetrano Gaia1ORCID,Ford Chris4ORCID,Williams Peter5ORCID

Affiliation:

1. National Institute for Health and Care Research Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s College London, London, UK

2. Special Care Dentistry, Division of Population and Patient Health, King’s College London, London, UK

3. Surrey Health Economics Centre, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

4. Retired general practitioner, UK

5. Department of Mathematics, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Abstract

Background There is a high prevalence of health problems among single people who are homeless. Specialist primary health care services for this population have been developed in several locations across England; however, there have been very few evaluations of these services. Objectives This study evaluated the work of different models of primary health care provision in England to determine their effectiveness in engaging people who are homeless in health care and in providing continuity of care for long-term conditions. It concerned single people (not families or couples with dependent children) staying in hostels, other temporary accommodation or on the streets. The influence on outcomes of contextual factors and mechanisms (service delivery factors), including integration with other services, were examined. Data from medical records were collated on participants’ use of health care and social care services over 12 months, and costs were calculated. Design and setting The evaluation involved four existing Health Service Models: (1) health centres primarily for people who are homeless (Dedicated Centres), (2) Mobile Teams providing health care in hostels and day centres, (3) Specialist GPs providing some services exclusively for patients who are homeless and (4) Usual Care GPs providing no special services for people who are homeless (as a comparison). Two Case Study Sites were recruited for each of the specialist models, and four for the Usual Care GP model. Participants People who had been homeless during the previous 12 months were recruited as ‘case study participants’; they were interviewed at baseline and at 4 and 8 months, and information was collected about their circumstances and their health and service use in the preceding 4 months. Overall, 363 participants were recruited; medical records were obtained for 349 participants. Interviews were conducted with 65 Case Study Site staff and sessional workers, and 81 service providers and stakeholders. Results The primary outcome was the extent of health screening for body mass index, mental health, alcohol use, tuberculosis, smoking and hepatitis A among participants, and evidence of an intervention if a problem was identified. There were no overall differences in screening between the models apart from Mobile Teams, which scored considerably lower. Dedicated Centres and Specialist GPs were more successful in providing continuity of care for participants with depression and alcohol and drug problems. Service use and costs were significantly higher for Dedicated Centre participants and lower for Usual Care GP participants. Participants and staff welcomed flexible and tailored approaches to care, and related services being available in the same building. Across all models, dental needs were unaddressed and staff reported poor availability of mental health services. Limitations There were difficulties recruiting mainstream general practices for the Usual Care GP model. Medical records could not be accessed for 14 participants of this model. Conclusions Participant characteristics, contextual factors and mechanisms were influential in determining outcomes. Overall, outcomes for Dedicated Centres and for one of the Specialist GP sites were relatively favourable. They had dedicated staff for patients who were homeless, ‘drop-in’ services, on-site mental health and substance misuse services, and worked closely with hospitals and homelessness sector services. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (HSDR 13/156/03) and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) Programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health and Care Research

Subject

Health (social science),Care Planning,Health Policy

Reference123 articles.

1. Broadway. CHAIN Annual Report. Street to Home: 1st April 2012–31st March 2013. London: Broadway; 2013. URL: www.mungos.org/app/uploads/2017/07/chain_street_to_home_annual_report_2012-13.pdf (accessed 1 June 2021).

2. Greater London Authority. CHAIN Annual Report. Greater London: April 2020–March 2021. London: Greater London Authority; 2021. URL: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/chain-reports (accessed 29 August 2022).

3. The unmet health care needs of homeless adults: a national study;Baggett;Am J Public Health,2010

4. Access to primary health care among homeless adults in Toronto, Canada: results from the Street Health survey;Khandor;Open Med,2011

5. The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations;Fazel;Lancet,2014

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3