In critique of moral resilience: UK healthcare professionals' experiences working with asylum applicants housed in contingency accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This research explores the experiences of UK NHS healthcare professionals working with asylum applicants housed in contingency accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a critical understanding of the concept of moral resilience as a theoretical framework, we explore how the difficult circumstances in which they worked were navigated, and the extent to which moral suffering led to moral transformation. Ten staff from a general practice participated in semistructured interviews. Encountering the harms endured by people seeking asylum prior to arrival in the UK and through the UK's 'Hostile Environment' caused healthcare staff moral suffering. They responded to this in several ways, including: (1) feeling grateful for their own fortunes; (2) defining the limitations of their professional obligations; (3) focusing on the rewards of work and (4) going above and beyond usual care. Although moral resilience is reflected in much of the data, some participants described how the work caused ideological transformations and motivated challenges to systems of oppression. We show how current moral resilience theory fails to capture these transformative political and social responses, warning of how, instead, it might encourage healthcare staff to maintain the status quo. We caution against the widespread endorsement of current formulations of moral resilience in contemporary social and political climates, where the hostile and austere systems causing suffering are the result of ideological political decisions. Future work should instead focus on enabling working conditions to support, and developing theory to capture, collective resistance.

Reluctance of general practice staff to register patients without documentation: a qualitative study in North East London.

BACKGROUND: Lack of access to documentation is a key barrier to GP registration, despite NHS England guidance stating that documents are not required. Staff attitudes and practice regarding registration of those without documentation are under- researched. AIM: To understand the processes through which registration might be refused for those without documents, and the factors operating to influence this. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study conducted in general practice across three clinical commissioning groups in North East London. METHOD: In total, 33 participants (GP staff involved in registering new patients) were recruited through email invitation. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis. Two social theories informed this analysis: Lipsky's street-level bureaucracy and Bourdieu's theory of practice. RESULTS: Despite good knowledge of guidance, most participants expressed reluctance to register those without documentation, often introducing additional hurdles or requirements in their everyday practice. Two explanatory themes were generated: that those without documents were perceived as burdensome, and/or that moral judgements were made about their deservedness to finite resources. Participants described a context of high workload and insufficient funding. Some felt that GP services should be restricted by immigration status, as is widespread in secondary care. CONCLUSION: Improving inclusive registration practice requires addressing staff concerns, supporting navigation of high workloads, tackling financial disincentives to registering transient groups, and challenging narratives that undocumented migrants represent a 'threat' to NHS resources. Furthermore, it is imperative to acknowledge and address upstream drivers, in this instance the Hostile Environment.

Interventions to improve health and the determinants of health among sex workers in high-income countries: a systematic review.

Many sex worker populations face high morbidity and mortality, but data are scarce on interventions to improve their health. We did a systematic review of health and social interventions to improve the health and wider determinants of health among adult sex workers in high-income countries. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EthOS, OpenGrey, and Social Care Online, as well as the Global Network of Sex Work Projects and the Sex Work Research Hub for studies published between Jan 1, 2005 and Dec 16, 2021 (PROSPERO CRD42019158674). Quantitative studies reporting disaggregated data for sex workers were included and no comparators were specified. We assessed rigour using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. We summarised studies using vote counting and a narrative synthesis. 20 studies were included. Most reported findings exclusively for female sex workers (n=17) and street-based sex workers (n=11). Intervention components were divided into education and empowerment (n=14), drug treatment (n=4), sexual and reproductive health care (n=7), other health care (n=5), and welfare (n=5). Interventions affected a range of mental health, physical health, and health behaviour outcomes. Multicomponent interventions and interventions that were focused on education and empowerment were of benefit. Interventions that used peer design and peer delivery were effective. An outreach or drop-in component might be beneficial in some contexts. Sex workers who were new to working in an area faced greater challenges accessing services. Data were scarce for male, transgender, and indoor-based sex workers. Co-designed and co-delivered interventions that are either multicomponent or focus on education and empowerment are likely to be effective. Policy makers and health-care providers should improve access to services for all genders of sex workers and those new to an area. Future research should develop interventions for a greater diversity of sex worker populations and for wider health and social needs.

Patients or passports? The 'hostile environment' in the NHS.

Throughout the pandemic, the NHS has continued to charge certain patients for their care based on their immigration status and to report patients with outstanding debt to the Home Office. Research has consistently shown that these policies act as a significant barrier to healthcare access for already minoritised communities, and that during the pandemic patients have remained fearful and reluctant to seek care due to charging, including care for 'exempt' conditions such as COVID-19. Charging policies, and associated data sharing, represent only one of the myriad ways in which structural and 'every day' racism operate to impact health; however, they undoubtedly form a part of the picture as to why COVID-19 has disproportionately affected many minoritised communities.