Dataset Information

Improving the healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse in primary care: protocol for a mixed method evaluation of the implementation of a complex intervention.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Domestic violence and abuse remains a major health concern. It is unknown whether the improved healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse demonstrated in a cluster randomised controlled trial of IRIS (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety), a complex intervention, including general practice based training, support and referral programme, can be achieved outside a trial setting.

Aim

To evaluate the impact over four years of a system wide implementation of IRIS, sequentially into multiple areas, outside the setting of a trial.

Methods

An interrupted time series analysis of referrals received by domestic violence and abuse workers from 201 general practices, in five northeast London boroughs; alongside a mixed methods process evaluation and qualitative analysis. Segmented regression interrupted time series analysis to estimate impact of the IRIS intervention over a 53-month period. A secondary analysis compares the segmented regression analysis in each of the four implementation boroughs, with a fifth comparator borough.

Discussion

This is the first interrupted time series analysis of an intervention to improve the health care response to domestic violence. The findings will characterise the impact of IRIS implementation outside a trial setting and its suitability for national implementation in the United Kingdom.

SUBMITTER: Sohal AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6091071 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving the healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse in primary care: protocol for a mixed method evaluation of the implementation of a complex intervention.

Sohal Alex Hardip AH Feder Gene G Barbosa Estela E Beresford Lee L Dowrick Anna A El-Shogri Farah F Howell Annie A Lewis Natalia N Johnson Medina M Nightingale Claire C Boomla Kambiz K Morris Stephen S Eldridge Sandra S Griffiths Chris C

BMC public health 20180803 1

<h4>Background</h4>Domestic violence and abuse remains a major health concern. It is unknown whether the improved healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse demonstrated in a cluster randomised controlled trial of IRIS (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety), a complex intervention, including general practice based training, support and referral programme, can be achieved outside a trial setting.<h4>Aim</h4>To evaluate the impact over four years of a system wide implementation of ...[more]

PMID: 30075711

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth systems have a critical role in a multi-sectoral response to domestic violence against women (DVAW). However, the evidence on interventions is skewed towards high income countries, and evidence based interventions are not easily transferred to low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) where significant social, cultural and economic differences exist. We evaluated feasibility and acceptability of implementation of an intervention (HERA-Healthcare Responding to Violence and Abuse) to improve the response to DVAW in two primary health care clinics (PHC) in Brazil.MethodsThe study design is a mixed method process and outcome evaluation, based on training attendance records, semi-structured interviews (with 13 Primary Health Care (PHC) providers, two clinic directors and two women who disclosed domestic violence), and identification and referral data from the Brazilian Epidemiological Surveillance System (SINAN).ResultsHERA was feasible and acceptable to women and PHC providers, increased providers' readiness to identify DVAW and diversified referrals outside the health system. The training enhanced the confidence and skills of PHC providers to ask directly about violence and respond to women's disclosures using a women centred, gender and human rights perspective. PHC providers felt safe and supported when dealing with DVAW because HERA emphasised clear roles and collective action within the clinical team. A number of challenges affected implementation including: differential managerial support for the Núcleo de Prevenção da Violência (Violence Prevention Nucleus-NPV) relating to the allocation of resources, monitoring progress and giving feedback; a lack of higher level institutional endorsement prioritising DVAW work; staff turnover; a lack of feedback from external support services to PHC clinics regarding DVAW cases; and inconsistent practices regarding documentation of DVAW.ConclusionTraining should be accompanied by system-wide institutional change including active (as opposed to passive) management support, allocation of resources to support roles within the NPV, locally adapted protocols and guidelines, monitoring progress and feedback. Communication and coordination with external support services and documentation systems are crucial and need improvement. DVAW should be prioritised within leadership and governance structures, for example, by including DVAW work as a specific commissioning goal.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is unknown whether interventions known to improve the healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse (DVA)-a global health concern-are effective outside of a trial. METHODS:An observational interrupted time series study in general practice. All registered women aged 16 and above were eligible for inclusion. In four implementation boroughs' general practices, there was face-to-face, practice-based, clinically relevant DVA training, a prompt in the electronic medical record, reminding clinicians to consider DVA, a simple referral pathway to a named advocate, ensuring direct access for women to specialist services, overseen by a national, health-focused DVA organisation, fostering best practice. The fifth comparator borough had only a session delivered by a local DVA specialist agency at community venues conveying information to clinicians. The primary outcome was the daily number of referrals received by DVA workers per 1000 women registered in a general practice, from 205 general practices, in all five northeast London boroughs. The secondary outcome was recorded new DVA cases in the electronic medical record in two boroughs. Data was analysed using an interrupted time series with a mixed effects Poisson regression model. RESULTS:In the 144 general practices in the four implementation boroughs, there was a significant increase in referrals received by DVA workers-global incidence rate ratio of 30.24 (95% CI 20.55 to 44.77, p?<?0.001). There was no increase in the 61 general practices in the other comparator borough (incidence rate ratio of 0.95, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.84, p?=?0.959). New DVA cases recorded significantly increased with an incident rate ratio of 1.27 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.48, p?<?0.002) in the implementation borough but not in the comparator borough (incidence rate ratio of 1.05, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.34, p?=?0.699). CONCLUSIONS:Implementing integrated referral routes, training and system-level support, guided by a national health-focused DVA organisation, outside of a trial setting, was effective and sustainable at scale, over four years (2012 to 2017) increasing referrals to DVA workers and new DVA cases recorded in electronic medical records.

Project description:Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) is a training and support programme to improve the response to domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in general practice. Following a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial, IRIS has been implemented in over 30 administrative localities in the UK. The trial and local evaluations of the IRIS implementation showed an increase in referrals from general practice to third sector DVA services with a variation in the referral rates within and across practices. Using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), we aimed to understand the reasons for such variability by identifying factors that influenced the implementation of IRIS in the National Health Service (NHS). We conducted a mixed-method process evaluation which included: (a) a case study (100 hr of participant observation, 19 interviews); (b) a survey (n = 118); (c) qualitative analysis of free-text comments from the survey; (d) qualitative interviews (n = 8); (e) document review (n = 44). Data were collected from NHS and third sector staff across five London boroughs from August 2015 to December 2017, analysed descriptively and thematically and triangulated using the NPT constructs coherence, cognitive participation, collection action and reflexive monitoring. The survey showed wide variation in the extent to which practice staff saw IRIS as a normal part of their daily work. Qualitative data and documents illuminated drivers of DVA work, implementation barriers and suggested solutions. The drivers were related to individual professional's characteristics and relationships. The barriers were linked to the differing sense-making and legitimisation of DVA work and differing contexts between the NHS and third sector. Solutions were adaptations to IRIS relative to these contextual differences. The suggested solutions can be used to update IRIS commissioning guidance, training for trainers and training for general practice. The updates should reflect the importance of ongoing support of IRIS from practice leads and commissioners, extended funding periods for IRIS and continuity of the IRIS team.

Project description:Secondary trauma arises through indirect exposure to trauma through engaging with first-hand accounts and narratives of traumatic events. While a significant amount of research has explored secondary trauma experienced by professionals who work with survivors of trauma, such as clinicians and front-line service providers, there is little research exploring the experiences of secondary trauma among violence researchers who routinely engage with traumatic first-hand accounts through their work. This study qualitatively explored violence researcher's professional experiences of secondary trauma and their perceptions of what enables and constrains their own coping and resilience. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted online with seven female violence researchers from the United Kingdom. Questions explored participant's experiences of secondary trauma symptoms related to their research, perceptions of their own coping and resilience, and experiences of organizational support that have enabled or constrained their resilience. Data were analyzed thematically using a coding framework applied reflexively across interview transcripts. All participants reported experiencing symptoms of secondary trauma from their work including cognitive disturbances; altered beliefs of themselves, others or the world; and challenges connecting with others. Participants' assessment of their own expertise in violence research did not generally impact their perception of their own resilience. Organizational support for violence researchers was rarely provided and participants felt generally unsupported-left to manage any resultant distress alone. Research organizations and universities should implement trauma-informed policies which positively transform workplace culture, provide peer support spaces, and conduct effective training in order to mitigate psychological harm and promote resilience among violence researchers. Support should be tailored to the requirements of violence researchers, and institutions should develop policies that are specifically attentive to the needs of researchers who also have lived experience of violence and abuse.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Domestic violence and abuse (DVA) damages the health of survivors and increases use of healthcare services. We report findings from a multi-site evaluation of hospital-based advocacy services, designed to support survivors attending emergency departments and maternity services. METHODS:Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVA) were co-located in five UK hospitals. Case-level data were collected at T1 (initial referral) and T2 (case closure) from survivors accessing hospital (T1?N?=?692; T2?N?=?476) and community IDVA services (T1?N?=?3544; T2?N?=?2780), used as a comparator. Measures included indicators of sociodemographic characteristics, experience of abuse, health service use, health and safety outcomes. Multivariate analyses tested for differences in changes in abuse, health and factors influencing safety outcomes. Health service use data in the 6 months pre-and post- intervention were compared to generate potential cost savings by hospital IDVA services. RESULTS:Hospital IDVAs worked with survivors less visible to community IDVA services and facilitated intervention at an earlier point. Hospital IDVAs received higher referrals from health services and enabled access to a greater number of health resources. Hospital survivors were more likely to report greater reductions in and cessation of abuse. No differences were observed in health outcomes for hospital survivors. The odds of safety increased two-fold if hospital survivors received over five contacts with an IDVA or accessed six or more resources / programmes over a longer period of time. Six months preceding IDVA intervention, hospital survivors cost on average £2463 each in use of health services; community survivors cost £533 each. The cost savings observed among hospital survivors amounted to a total of £2050 per patient per year. This offset the average cost of providing hospital IDVA services. CONCLUSIONS:Hospital IDVAs can identify survivors not visible to other services and promote safety through intensive support and access to resources. The co-location of IDVAs within the hospital encouraged referrals to other health services and wider community agencies. Further research is required to establish the cost-effectiveness of hospital IDVA services, however our findings suggest these services could be an efficient use of health service resources.

Project description:BackgroundIdentification in UK general practice of women affected by domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is increasing, but men and children/young people (CYP) are rarely identified and referred for specialist support. To address this gap, we collaborated with IRISi (UK social enterprise) to strengthen elements of the IRIS + intervention which included the identification of men, direct engagement with CYP, and improved guidance on responding to information received from other agencies. IRIS + was an adaptation of the national IRIS (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety) model focused on the needs of women victim-survivors of DVA. Without diminishing the responses to women, IRIS + also responded to the needs of men experiencing or perpetrating DVA, and CYP living with DVA and/or experiencing it in their own relationships. Our study tested the feasibility of the adapted IRIS + intervention in England and Wales between 2019-21.MethodsWe used mixed method analysis to triangulate data from various sources (pre/post intervention questionnaires with primary care clinicians; data extracted from medical records and DVA agencies; semi-structured interviews with clinicians, service providers and referred adults and children) to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the IRIS + intervention.ResultsThe rate of referral for women doubled (21.6/year/practice) from the rate (9.29/year/practice) in the original IRIS trial. The intervention also enabled identification and direct referral of CYP (15% of total referrals) and men (mostly survivors, 10% of total referrals). Despite an increase in self-reported clinician preparedness to respond to all patient groups, the intervention generated a low number of men perpetrator referrals (2% of all referrals). GPs were the principal patient referrers. Over two-thirds of referred women and CYP and almost half of all referred men were directly supported by the service. Many CYP also received IRIS + support indirectly, via the referred parents. Men and CYP supported by IRIS + reported improved physical and mental health, wellbeing, and confidence.ConclusionsAlthough the study showed acceptability and feasibility, there remains uncertainty about the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and scalability of IRIS + . Building on the success of this feasibility study, the next step should be trialling the effectiveness of IRIS + implementation to inform service implementation decisions.

Project description:BackgroundOver two million adults experience domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in England and Wales each year. Domestic homicide reviews often show that health services have frequent contact with victims and perpetrators, but healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not share information related to DVA across healthcare settings and with other agencies or services.AimWe aimed to analyse and highlight the commonalities, inconsistencies, gaps and ambiguities in English guidance for HCPs around medical confidentiality, information sharing or DVA specifically.SettingThe English National Health Service.Design and methodWe conducted a desk-based review, adopting the READ approach to document analysis. This approach is a method of qualitative health policy research and involves four steps for gathering, and extracting information from, documents. Its four steps are: (1) Ready your materials, (2) Extract data, (3) Analyse data and (4) Distill your findings. Documents were identified by searching websites of national bodies in England that guide and regulate clinical practice and by backwards citation-searching documents we identified initially.ResultsWe found 13 documents that guide practice. The documents provided guidance on (1) sharing information without consent, (2) sharing with or for multiagency risk assessment conferences (MARACs), (3) sharing for formal safeguarding and (4) sharing within the health service. Key findings were that guidance documents for HCPs emphasise that sharing information without consent can happen in only exceptional circumstances; documents are inconsistent, contradictory and ambiguous; and none of the documents, except one safeguarding guide, mention how coercive control can influence patients' free decisions.ConclusionsGuidance for HCPs on sharing information about DVA is numerous, inconsistent, ambiguous and lacking in detail, highlighting a need for coherent recommendations for cross-speciality clinical practice. Recommendations should reflect an understanding of the manifestations, dynamics and effects of DVA, particularly coercive control.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health services are often the first point of professional contact for people who have experienced domestic violence and abuse. We report on the evaluation of a multi-site, hospital-based advocacy intervention for survivors of domestic violence and abuse. Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs), who provide survivors with support around safety, criminal justice, and health and wellbeing, were located in five hospitals in England between 2012 and 2015 in emergency departments and maternity services. We present views about IDVAs' approaches to tackling domestic violence and abuse, how the IDVA service worked in practice, and factors that hindered and facilitated engagement with survivors. METHODS:We adopted a convenience sampling approach and invited participation from all who offered to take part within the study timeframe. Sixty-four healthcare professionals, IDVAs, IDVA service managers, and commissioners at all sites were interviewed. Interviews were analysed using a thematic approach: familiarising ourselves with the data through repeated readings and noting initial ideas; generating initial codes through double coding notable features of the data across the dataset; collating codes into potential themes; and reviewing themes to ensure they captured the essence of the data. RESULTS:Two key themes emerged. The first was Hospital-based IDVAs fulfil several crucial roles. This theme highlighted that healthcare professionals thought the hospital-based IDVA service was valuable because it enhanced their skills, knowledge, and confidence in asking about domestic violence and abuse. It enabled them to immediately refer and provide support to patients who might have otherwise been lost along a referral pathway. It also reached survivors who might otherwise have remained hidden. The second theme was Success hinges on a range of structural factors. This theme illustrated the importance of ongoing domestic violence and abuse training for staff, the IDVA having private and dedicated space, and the service being embedded in hospital infrastructure (e.g. featuring it in hospital-wide policies and enabling IDVAs access to medical records). CONCLUSION:Hospital-based IDVAs offer a unique and valued way to respond to domestic violence and abuse in a healthcare setting. Further work must now be done to explore how to implement the service sustainably.

Dataset Information

Improving the healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse in primary care: protocol for a mixed method evaluation of the implementation of a complex intervention.

Background

Aim

Methods

Discussion

Publications

Improving the healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse in primary care: protocol for a mixed method evaluation of the implementation of a complex intervention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets