The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) has highlighted a stark reality: migrants in Europe are disproportionately affected by undiagnosed infections, including tuberculosis, blood-borne viruses, and parasitic infections. Many migrants also fall into the category of being under-immunised. The call to action is clear — innovative strategies must be developed to deliver integrated multi-disease screening within primary care settings. Despite this call, the United Kingdom's response remains fragmented. Our recent in-depth qualitative study published in the Journal of Migration and Health delves into the current practices, barriers, and potential solutions to this pressing public health issue.
Primary healthcare professionals from across the UK participated in two phases of this qualitative study through semi-structured telephone interviews. The first phase focused on clinical staff, including general practitioners, nurses, healthcare assistants, and pharmacists. The second phase targeted administrative staff, such as practice managers and receptionists. Through these interviews, a complex picture emerged, revealing a primary care system capable of effective screening but hamstrung by inconsistency and lack of standardized approaches. Many practices lack a systematic screening process, resulting in migrant patients not consistently receiving care based on established NICE/ECDC/UKHSA guidelines.
The barriers to effective infectious disease screening are multifaceted, stemming from patient, staff, and systemic levels. Clinicians and administrative staff pinpointed the stumbling blocks: overly complex care pathways, a lack of financial and expert support, and the need for significant administrative and clinical time investments. Solutions proposed by respondents include appointing infectious disease champions among patients and staff, providing targeted training and specialist support, simplifying care pathways, and introducing financial incentives.
Enter Health Catch-UP!., a collaboratively developed digital clinical decision-making tool designed to support multi-infection screening for migrant patients. The primary care professionals involved in the study responded enthusiastically to this digital innovation. They recognized its potential to systematize data integration and support clinical decision-making, thereby increasing knowledge, reducing missed screening opportunities, and normalizing infectious disease screening for migrants in primary care.
The conclusion is unequivocal: current implementation of infectious disease screening in migrant populations within UK primary care is suboptimal. Yet, there is hope. Digital tools like Health Catch-UP! could revolutionize disease detection and the effective implementation of screening guidance. However, for such digital innovations to succeed, they must be robustly tested and adequately resourced. It's not just about having the right tools but also ensuring the entire healthcare system is aligned to support their deployment. With the right commitment, we can ensure that migrants receive the care they need and deserve, safeguarding both their individual health as well as public health in the UK.
Comments