Abstract
Background Identifying and responding to patients affected by domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is vital in primary care. There may have been a rise in the reporting of DVA cases during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown measures. Concurrently general practice adopted remote working that extended to training and education. IRIS (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety) is an example of an evidence-based UK healthcare training support and referral programme, focusing on DVA. IRIS transitioned to remote delivery during the pandemic.
Aim To understand the adaptations and impact of remote DVA training in IRIS-trained general practices by exploring perspectives of those delivering and receiving training.
Design and setting Qualitative interviews and observation of remote training of general practice teams in England were undertaken.
Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants (three practice managers, three reception and administrative staff, eight general practice clinicians, and seven specialist DVA staff), alongside observation of eight remote training sessions. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach.
Results Remote DVA training in UK general practice widened access to learners. However, it may have reduced learner engagement compared with face-to-face training and may challenge safeguarding of remote learners who are domestic abuse survivors. DVA training is integral to the partnership between general practice and specialist DVA services, and reduced engagement risks weakening this partnership.
Conclusion The authors recommend a hybrid DVA training model for general practice, including remote information delivery alongside a structured face-to-face element. This has broader relevance for other specialist services providing training and education in primary care.
Aim To understand the adaptations and impact of remote DVA training in IRIS-trained general practices by exploring perspectives of those delivering and receiving training.
Design and setting Qualitative interviews and observation of remote training of general practice teams in England were undertaken.
Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants (three practice managers, three reception and administrative staff, eight general practice clinicians, and seven specialist DVA staff), alongside observation of eight remote training sessions. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach.
Results Remote DVA training in UK general practice widened access to learners. However, it may have reduced learner engagement compared with face-to-face training and may challenge safeguarding of remote learners who are domestic abuse survivors. DVA training is integral to the partnership between general practice and specialist DVA services, and reduced engagement risks weakening this partnership.
Conclusion The authors recommend a hybrid DVA training model for general practice, including remote information delivery alongside a structured face-to-face element. This has broader relevance for other specialist services providing training and education in primary care.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | e519-e527 |
| Journal | British Journal of General Practice |
| Volume | 73 |
| Issue number | 732 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jul 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This study is part of PRECODE as a 12-month cross university collaborative project funded by the UK Research and Innovation Rapid Response Call and the Medical Research Council (MRC) (reference: MR/ V041533/1). Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths’ work is in part supported by funding from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and the UK Department of Health and Social Care; the funders had no role in the study design, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of this article. Gene Feder and Estela Capelas Barbosa receive salary contributions from the VISION research, supported by the UK Prevention Research Partnership (Violence, Health and Society; reference: MR-VO49879/1), funded by the British Heart Foundation, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), MRC, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Natural Environment Research Council, Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), The Health Foundation, and Wellcome; the views expressed are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the UK Prevention Research Partnership or any other funder. Sharon Dixon is supported by NIHR DRF (reference: NIHR301787); the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Ethical approval Ethical approval for the study was received from the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (reference: 20/HRA/5873), and University of Bristol Faculty of Health Science Research Ethics Approval (reference: 113044).
Publisher Copyright:
©The Authors.
Research Groups and Themes
- HEHP@Bristol
