Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:12:03.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Audit Exploring Ethnic Inequalities in Accessing Perinatal Mental Health Services in Southwark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Wendy Morgan*
Affiliation:
South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Joanne Butler
Affiliation:
South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Women from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds have been shown to experience an increased burden of common postnatal mental health conditions and higher rates of involuntary admissions. However, evidence demonstrates disparities in these women accessing perinatal mental health support. Reasons behind barriers to access must be defined and addressed. Our aim was to explore ethnic inequalities in accessing Perinatal Mental Health Services in Southwark (SWK PMHS). We hypothesised that SWK PMHS would meet Royal college of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) gold standards in providing equitable access to care.

Methods

The Trust's local clinical database was used to extract our cohort of women aged 15–44 years with a birth episode in contact with SWK PMHS between September and December 2021. Individual data were collected via local clinical notes system to establish basic measures (demographics and ethnicity) and detailed information (referral outcome, interventions, safeguarding etc). Ethnicity data were compared to King's College Hospital birth records for 2021 and local census data via Office of National Statistics.

Results

105 patients were analysed in total. Overall, there was poor recording of ethnicity and 6.6% of referrals had no ethnicity documented at all. At the point of referral, there was no clear inequity based on ethnicity, with data appearing reflective of local census and maternity records. However, there were concerning inequities in treatment received by women in minority ethnic groups. Out of four hospital admissions in total, three (75%) of the women were from a Black ethnic group and all were detained. There were fewer referrals for psychology intervention for women in minority ethnic groups compared to women in the White ethnic group, with particularly low numbers of referrals for women in Asian and Mixed ethnic groups (2/35 women). 83% of all antipsychotics prescribed (5 out of 6) were to women from the Black ethnic group with the remainder being women in the White ethnic group. There were 31 safeguarding alerts, with almost half (48%) from women in the Black ethnic group.

Conclusion

There were concerning variations in interventions and type of care received by women from minority ethnic groups. Women from Black and minority ethnic groups were underrepresented in accessing psychology intervention though conversely overrepresented for antipsychotic treatment, safeguarding alerts and involuntary admissions.

This suggests that contrary to our hypothesis, SWK PMHS is not meeting RCPsych Gold Standards. Our audit findings reflect literature that there are apparent barriers to women from ethnic minority groups accessing certain specialist mental health services.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.