Obstacles to “race equality” in the English National Health Service: Insights from the healthcare commissioning arena

Abstract

Inequitable healthcare access, experiences and outcomes across ethnic groups are of concern across many countries. Progress on this agenda appears limited in England given the apparently strong legal and policy framework. This disjuncture raises questions about how central government policy is translated into local services. Healthcare commissioning organisations are a potentially powerful influence on services, but have rarely been examined from an equity perspective. We undertook a mixed method exploration of English Primary Care Trust (PCT) commissioning in 2010–12, to identify barriers and enablers to commissioning that addresses ethnic healthcare inequities, employing:- in-depth interviews with 19 national Key Informants; documentation of 10 good practice examples; detailed case studies of three PCTs (70+ interviews; extensive observational work and documentary analysis); three national stakeholder workshops. We found limited and patchy attention to ethnic diversity and inequity within English healthcare commissioning. Marginalization of this agenda, along with ambivalence, a lack of clarity and limited confidence, perpetuated a reinforcing inter-play between individual managers, their organisational setting and the wider policy context. Despite the apparent contrary indications, ethnic equity was a peripheral concern within national healthcare policy; poorly aligned with other more dominant agendas. Locally, consideration of ethnicity was often treated as a matter of legal compliance rather than integral to understanding and meeting healthcare needs. Many managers and teams did not consider tackling ethnic healthcare inequities to be part-and-parcel of their job, lacked confidence and skills to do so, and questioned the legitimacy of such work. Our findings indicate the need to enhance the skills, confidence and competence of individual managers and commissioning teams and to improve organizational structures and processes that support attention to ethnic inequity. Greater political will and clearer national direction is also required to produce the system change needed to embed action on ethnic inequity within healthcare commissioning.

Delivering a culturally adapted therapy for Muslim clients with depression

“…Within this population access to, and outcomes from, mental health care are not currently equitable (Sproston and Nazroo, 2002). There is evidence of professional uncertainty among practitioners about how to engage with ethnic and religious diversity (Kai et al, 2007), and concerns about inequitable provision among commissioners (Salway et al, 2016). Among minority ethnic clients, research highlights low levels of trust in mental health services and widespread failure to accommodate spiritual needs in National Health Service (NHS) care (Mir and Sheikh, 2010;NICE, 2016).…”

Factors in implementation of clinical commissioning policy in improving health and wellbeing and/or reducing health inequalities in the English NHS: a systematic review of the evidence

“…We identi ed 2166 references, scanned 133 titles and abstracts and retrieved 42 publications for full texts. From these, we included six studies (including a total of 1155 participants) that reported data on clinical commissioning and health inequalities [46][47][48][49][50][51] and excluded 36 studies (Additional le 2). Of the six, four were qualitative.…”

“…Of the six, four were qualitative. [46][47][48][49] All studies were conducted between 2010 and 2017 and the list of included studies is presented in Table 2.…”

Interventions to improve immigrant health. A scoping review

“…This may be a consequence of the challenges faced in undertaking such research or to the lack of priority of immigrants’ health in research policies. Decision makers have highlighted the lack of data and paucity of relevant evidence as reasons for not starting interventions that specifically target immigrants 21 . Therefore, we have formulated a set of recommendations (table 2) informed by our analysis of the existing evidence base, which we address in greater detail below.…”