Background: Domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is common and damaging to health. UK national guidance advocates a multi-agency response to DVA, and domestic homicide reviews consistently recommend improved information-sharing between agencies. Identification of patients experiencing DVA in general practice may come from external information shared with the practice, such as police incident reports and multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) reports. The aim of this study was to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs) and the police about sharing reports about DVA with GPs. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs, police staff and a partnership manager. Participants were located across England and Wales. Thematic analysis was undertaken. Results: Interviews were conducted with 23 GPs, six police staff and one former partnership manager. Experiences of information-sharing with GPs about DVA varied. Participants described the relevance and value of external reports to GPs to help address the health consequences of DVA and safeguard patients. They balanced competing priorities when managing this information in the electronic medical record, namely visibility to GPs versus the risk of unintended disclosure to patients. GPs also spoke of the judgements they made about exploring DVA with patients based on external reports, which varied between abusive and non-abusive adults and children. Some felt constrained by short general practice consultations. Some police and GPs reflected on a loss of control when information about DVA was shared between agencies, and the risk of unintended consequences. Both police and GPs highlighted the importance of clear information and a shared understanding about responsibility for action. Conclusion: GPs regarded external reports about DVA as relevant to their role, but safely recording this information in the electronic medical record and using it to support patients required complex judgements. Both GPs and police staff emphasised the importance of clarity of information and responsibility for action when information was shared between agencies about patients affected by DVA.

One in five children in the UK are affected by domestic violence and abuse. However, primary care clinicians (GPs and nurses) struggle to effectively identify and support children and young people living in homes where it is present. The IRIS+ (Enhanced Identification and Referral to Improve Safety) training and advocacy support intervention aimed to improve how clinicians respond to children and young people affected by domestic violence and abuse. IRIS+ training was delivered as part of a feasibility study to four general practices in an urban area in England (UK). Our mixed method design included interviews and questionnaires about the IRIS+ intervention with general practice patients, including children and young people as well as with clinicians and advocacy service providers. We collected the number of identifications and referrals by clinicians of children experiencing domestic violence and abuse through a retrospective search of medical and agency records 10 months after the intervention. Forty‐nine children exposed to domestic violence and abuse were recorded in medical records. Thirty‐five children were referred to a specialist domestic violence and abuse support service over a period of 10 months. Of these, 22 received direct or indirect support. The qualitative findings indicated that children benefitted from being referred by clinicians to the service. However, several barriers at the patient and professional level prevented children and young people from being identified and supported. Some of these barriers can be addressed through modifications to professional training and guidance, but others require systematic and structural changes to the way health and social care services work with children affected by domestic violence and abuse.

Background Primary care needs to respond effectively to patients experiencing or perpetrating domestic violence and abuse (DVA) and their children, but there is uncertainty about the value of integrated programmes. The aim of the study was to develop and test the feasibility of an integrated primary care system-level training and support intervention, called IRIS+ (Enhanced Identification and Referral to Improve Safety), for all patients affected by DVA. IRIS+ was an adaptation of the original IRIS (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety) model designed to reach female survivors of DVA. Methods Observation of training; pre/post intervention questionnaires with clinicians and patients; data extracted from medical records and DVA agency; semi-structured interviews with clinicians, service providers and referred adults and children. Data collection took place between May 2017 and April 2018. Mixed method analysis was undertaken to triangulate data from various sources to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Results Clinicians and service providers believed that the IRIS+ intervention had filled a service gap and was a valuable resource in identifying and referring women, men and children affected by DVA. Despite increased levels of preparedness reported by clinicians after training in managing the complexity of DVA in their practice, the intervention proved to be insufficient to catalyse identification and specialist referral of men and direct identification and referral (without their non-abusive parents) of children and young people. The study also revealed that reports provided to general practice by other agencies are important sources of information about adult and children patients affected by DVA. However, in the absence of guidance about how to use this information in patient care, there are uncertainties and variation in practice. Conclusions The study demonstrates that the IRIS+ intervention is not feasible in the form and timeframe we evaluated. Further adaptation is required to achieve identification and referral of men and children in primary care: an enhanced focus on engagement with men, direct engagement with children, and improved guidance and training on responding to reports of DVA received from other agencies.

Parental substance misuse is a significant public health and children's rights issue. In the United Kingdom, social workers frequently work with children and families affected by substance misuse. However, relatively little is known about this population, particularly at point of referral to children's social care. This paper reports on the largest known study of parental substance misuse as a feature of children's social care work in England. The paper provides a cross-sectional profile of 299 children living with parental substance misuse and referred to children's social care in one local authority in England. Data were collected from social work case files at the point of referral to social care about the child, family, the wider environment, and parental substance misuse. The findings show that children affected by parental substance misuse frequently had other support needs relating to their well-being and mental health. Children were also likely to be experiencing other parental and environmental risk factors. The significant historical-and in some cases intergenerational-social care involvement for some families indicates potential issues with the capacity of services to meet needs. Recommendations for practice are discussed with a particular focus on the need for early, comprehensive support for children and families.

Microphysiological systems (MPS) are making advances to provide more standardized and predictive physiologically relevant responses to test articles in living tissues and organ systems. The excitement surrounding the potential of MPS to better predict human responses to medicines and improving clinical translation is overshadowed by their relatively slow adoption by the pharmaceutical industry and regulators. Collaboration between multiorganizational consortia and regulators is necessary to build an understanding of the strengths and limitations of MPS models and closing the current gaps. Here, we review some of the advances in MPS research, focusing on liver, intestine, vascular system, kidney and lung and present examples highlighting the context of use for these systems. For MPS to gain a foothold in drug development, they must have added value over existing approaches. Ideally, the application of MPS will augment in vivo studies and reduce the use of animals via tiered screening with less reliance on exploratory toxicology studies to screen compounds. Because MPS support multiple cell types (e.g. primary or stem-cell derived cells) and organ systems, identifying when MPS are more appropriate than simple 2D in vitro models for understanding physiological responses to test articles is necessary. Once identified, MPS models require qualification for that specific context of use and must be reproducible to allow future validation. Ultimately, the challenges of balancing complexity with reproducibility will inform the promise of advancing the MPS field and are critical for realization of the goal to reduce, refine and replace (3Rs) the use of animals in nonclinical research.