From crisis to collaboration: Transforming support for people experiencing homelessness in North East England

Posted by Steven Thirkle, Research Associate, Newcastle University

People experiencing homelessness often have multiple and complex health and social care needs that require support from many services. However, accessing and coordinating this support can be difficult when services are disconnected geographically or relationally. Often the person who is experiencing these challenges is the one who has to reach out for help, and this can be extremely hard for someone also managing day-to-day homelessness.

During our workshop, More Than Minutes visually captured our discussions, providing a dynamic summary. These visuals encapsulate key insights and recommendations, offering an engaging snapshot of our collective journey towards transforming support for people experiencing homelessness.

Over the past two years, our team has been working with services that provide support to people experiencing homelessness in rural and coastal areas of North East England. Our goal has been to explore innovative ways to improve access to care and support for these vulnerable people. Here, we share our research findings, shed light on the challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness and present our co-produced recommendations for creating a more effective and holistic (whole person) support system.

What does hospital data tell us?

To understand why people experiencing homelessness in the North East often turn to emergency care services in rural and coastal areas rather than seeking alternative forms of support, we examined hospital data on people attending emergency care services who had no recorded address. We discovered that there are many contributing factors, including struggles with alcohol and drugs, mental health issues, and challenging social situations. These challenges often occur at the same time, exacerbating their complexity and approaches to treatment.

What is stopping homeless people accessing services?

While this numerical data provided valuable insights, it did not uncover the underlying reasons behind the lack of engagement with other support services. To gain deeper insights, we interviewed people experiencing homelessness as well as those providing support in rural and coastal areas. The interviews aimed to explore experiences with emergency care services, overall health, social lives, and past traumas. They revealed significant barriers to accessing services, such as limited resources, transportation challenges inherent to rural areas, and the isolation often felt in coastal communities. Additionally, rigid service criteria and thresholds prevented people from receiving the support they urgently needed, further compounded by the sparse availability of services in these regions.

What is the current picture?

A comprehensive and integrated approach tailored to the rural and coastal context was needed to provide effective support to people experiencing homelessness in these areas, so we mapped out existing services and their collaborative relationships in the areas. Our findings showed a fragmented system, with many services operating independently and lacking essential connections to the core network of services necessary for addressing the unique challenges faced by people in rural and coastal areas.

How do we address the gaps?

In response to these gaps, we organised a workshop at the Community Hub in Cramlington, Northumberland, bringing together over 70 people including professionals from health, housing, social services, local authorities, law enforcement, emergency response, and third-sector organisations, as well as people with lived experience of homelessness and mental health issues in these regions. Together we developed recommendations for a more effective and collaborative approach to supporting people experiencing homelessness in rural and coastal areas. Seven key areas for recommendations were identified:

1. Long-term funding and resources: Campaign for sustained funding and increased resources to support comprehensive and ongoing assistance for homeless people.
2. Coordination, connectivity, and communication: Establish robust ways to coordinate, foster better connectivity between services, and improve communication channels to ensure a seamless and integrated support system.
3. Accessible services - pathways to support: Develop clear and accessible pathways for homeless people to access a wide range of support services, including health, housing, social services, and mental health resources.
4. Building trust and co-developing services with lived experience: Foster trust and inclusivity by actively involving peoples with lived experience of homelessness in the design, development, and evaluation of support services.
5. Trauma-informed practice: Implement trauma-informed approaches across all support services, recognising and addressing the underlying trauma experienced by homeless people.
6. Improved data sharing: Establish efficient data-sharing agreements for support services to ensure comprehensive and up-to-date information, enabling better coordination and informed decision-making.
7. Staff retention and wellbeing: Prioritise the wellbeing of support staff by providing resources, training, and support to prevent burnout and turnover, fostering continuity of care.

We have developed a handy two-page Fuse research brief which pulls out the key findings and recommendations for practice and policy co-developed with people with lived experience. 

Follow this link to read the brief

The mental health of the nation has never been so under threat

Posted by Fiona Duncan, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Durham University

Lockdowns and self-isolation, increasing care demands, concern for others, and ongoing uncertainty are exacerbated by a reinforcing 24-hour news and opinion cycle, playing havoc with our stress and anxiety levels and battering our overall sense of wellbeing. The coronavirus crisis.

However, for many people across the country, a feeling of their wellbeing being under attack is not new. Experiences of overwhelming debt, long-term unemployment, insecure housing, poverty, food insecurity, social isolation lasting months or years and/or discrimination are common and can collectively chronically diminish the mental health of the public as a whole.

These normal and extraordinary circumstances raise the question of how the mental health of an entire population can be supported, or in other words, how can we improve public mental health (PMH)? Over the past year, I have had the privilege of investigating this complex question in detail within Fuse.

My work has primarily involved mapping interventions currently being delivered to improve PMH, exploring models of good practice and searching for emerging innovative ideas. This focused on two areas – Blackburn with Darwen, and Redcar and Cleveland – which were selected on the basis of mental health statistics and varying characteristics (e.g. rurality, deprivation etc.).

I found this mapping exercise a great opportunity to get out and about and talk to people who organise and deliver projects to improve PMH on the ground in their local area. I spoke to a lot of very helpful people who were very passionate about the work they did and it was inspiring to hear about the variety of innovative projects that were being provided for people in these local authority areas to promote good mental health and prevent mental illness.

One of our main findings was that interventions to prevent social isolation and loneliness by providing various social activities were most common. This may reflect how recent campaigns surrounding reducing social isolation in older adults have influenced policy. Although a multitude of individual, family, community and structural factors influence PMH, not all of these were addressed. Does this suggest a wider variety of interventions are required in the future or would it be better to develop interventions which have the ability to target multiple factors at the same time? For instance, interventions which increase social networks within society, self-confidence or self-efficacy may enable people to deal with many different threats to their mental health without having to use a specific service.

An interesting finding of this mapping exercise was that a lot of these interventions either hadn’t been evaluated at all or only a very basic evaluation had been carried out so there was very little objective evidence regarding their effectiveness. This is something we hope to address in the next phase of the project by carrying out in-depth evaluations of promising interventions, including their potential to be delivered on a larger scale.

One final finding from this mapping that seems more relevant now than a month ago is that very few of the public mental health interventions could be delivered exclusively online. The implications of this are that the vast majority of the projects that we identified will most likely be suspended and many people who depended on this support will be left to cope alone. Moreover, people who are currently struggling with the isolation of lockdown have reduced options for help. Although Public Health England has published online guidance for the public on the mental health and wellbeing aspects of coronavirus there is an urgent need for supporting remote delivery or new online interventions within the next few weeks (of course, recognising that not everyone has access to these).

We also need to consider what we are all going to do when the COVID-19 situation is over. Will the country’s mental health bounce back to normal levels without any help, perhaps benefitting from the shared sense of community and new ways of living and working developed during the crisis? Or, will we need to work hard to develop and deliver services at the individual, family, community and structural levels to repair the damage that has been done to the mental health of the nation?


This work was part of WP4 of phase one of the NIHR SPHR Public Mental Health programme.  Information about the wider programme is on the SPHR website and was a collaboration of researchers based at Fuse, UCL, Imperial College London and Cambridge University.

Mapping collaboration and constructing a compass

Guest post by Lindy Turnbull, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University

Collaboration is promoted as a key aspect of commissioning and delivery in public health (NHS England, 2016) and health care (NHS England and NHS Improvement, 2016). Joint working and integration of services are seen as the way forward for the future NHS with new integrated models of care at the forefront of service redesign, and collaboration core to managing increased demands with diminishing resources. Although collaboration is a familiar concept and has been the subject of research and discussion it is still an area of practice which is poorly understood. It is striking that existing definitions of collaboration identify professional sharing with the focus on patient care, yet there is little representation of patients in most studies and the role of patients in collaboration seems to be missing from the existing theory.

I began my research after leading the development of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) a new model of care which required collaborative working across secondary and primary care to deliver treatment in patient homes. The development of this service was challenging and required strong collaborative relationships to overcome the organisational barriers to integration. Having experienced the challenges of collaborating to develop an integrated service I wondered if these difficulties continue into the delivery of the service in practice, and how collaboration takes place within the challenging environment of the constantly reorganised NHS.

The aim of my research was to develop substantive theory about what collaboration means in the delivery of integrated care, the way it is manifested in day-to-day practice and how it is shaped by the situation in which it takes place. I viewed patients and professionals as participants in collaboration and interviewed three patients and 21 professionals. I have used a social constructionist approach to grounded theory (Charmaz, 2008) and a range of situational mapping techniques (Clarke, 2005)1 to map collaboration within the situation of integrated care delivery. Analysis was a fascinating and absorbing experience as I used mind mapping software to analyse and compare the perspectives of those involved in collaboration and then to combine perspectives to map and analyse the complexity of the situation.

Participants expressed a number of interactive mechanisms (trusting, communicating, co-ordinating and rehearsing) which were influenced by a range of situational co-ordinates (goals, limits, certainty, uncertainty and power) and these were used together to navigate the complexity of the healthcare situation and direct the process and outcomes of collaboration. The capability of individuals to act, or interact was informed by their interpretation of the situation and this directed the capacity for collaboration within the care situation. Positional mapping techniques identified four directions of collaboration: developing, maintaining, limited and disrupted, and I found that limiting factors were significant in changing the direction of collaboration. The communication of some social limitations such as terminal illness, professional roles or work requirements altered an individual’s capability to collaborate and the capacity for collaboration within the situation.

My analysis has constructed a collaboration compass which is used to navigate the situation and direct the collaboration experienced by patients and professionals. I am in the process of writing up and still fighting my enthusiasm to write about everything I found and learned during my study; there simply aren’t enough words!

Reference:

1. Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Health Research Authority summary: The Meaning and Manifestation of Collaboration in Domiciliary Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Therapy: A Grounded Theory Situational Analysis.